Jesus having TWO nature’s, brings into question Jesus being Sinless?

Discussing with a Christian: Jesus TWO Natures one being Human the other God according to Triniterians, we also discuss Jesus being “sinless therefore divine”?

Muslim Wrote:

Christians tell us the Human nature of Jesus, is not like his divine nature. Only the human nature has flaws like, he needs to sleep, gets hundry, ignorant about the last hour, it can die. Etc.

They argue the divine nature has no flaws, because its the divine nature that is God. But then i ask them, can the human “nature sin” They say: no. It can’t sin and never has it sinned. So again tell me how is the human natures flawed?

Christian Wrote:

Please clarify who said, “The human nature can’t sin and never has sinned,” and when they said it.

This sounds like something mis-quoted and/or taken out of context.


Muslim Wrote:

Hi Graham Harter, just about every Christian i have spoken to, say that Jesus has never sinned by his human nature nor divine nature, they have even gone to the extent to say his human nature was too perfect to fall into sin.

May i ask, do you believe Jesus sinned through his human experiences on earth?

Christian Wrote:

Orthodox Christology is in many respects quite a subtle and nuanced doctrine. The nuances need to be distinguished quite carefully, otherwise we can easily end up saying things we don’t really mean, and/or people can take us to mean things we haven’t actually said.

How much of that has been the case, i.e., mis-statement, in things Christians have said to you, and how much has been misunderstood; and how much of it has been what Christians genuinely believed, and you’ve understood it correctly, is of course difficult to say.

For what it’s worth, here is my understanding of what the New Testament teaches about Christ in his human nature. I will word this carefully, and I would certainly appreciate it if others would be so kind as to read what I say carefully and endeavour not to understand it as saying something it isn’t.


Did Jesus ever sin?

Firstly, the New Testament is quite clear that Jesus never once sinned.

In order for the Messiah to bear the sins of his people (those who put their trust in him), theologically it’s necessary for him to be as it were an ‘unblemished’ lamb — like the unblemished lambs which were to be offered in the tabernacle as prescribed in the book of Leviticus (see, e.g., Leviticus 1:10 (context: whole chapter)).

Not only is this a theological point that Christians believe about Jesus, but the New Testament actually states it explicitly:—

“For we do not have a high priest [i.e., Jesus] who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet was without sin.”
Hebrews 4:15

So then, it is clear that Jesus did not sin.


Didn’t he sin through his human experiences on earth?

Now, the New Testament is unashamed in attributing to Jesus Christ some very human experiences — hunger, thirst, amazement (Matthew 8:10), not knowing things (John 4:1 being an example).

Merely to undergo human experiences such as the above, is not sin.

Sin rather is turning away from God, disobedience toward God. Sin is not therefore entailed in any of the above experiences — hunger, thirst, amazement, not knowing — unless of course any of the above experiences arise out of some sinful course of action. For example, I might not know about God because I deliberately choose not to find out about him. But in and of themselves, the above experiences are not sinful.

This should in any case be clear from the foregoing points. If the New Testament says that Jesus underwent these human experiences, but the New Testament also says that Jesus did not sin, it follows that these experiences are not (of necessity) sinful.


Could Jesus have sinned?

I am firmly convinced that it was possible for Jesus to sin.

To be human is to have the aptitude to sin.

What then does it mean for the Son of God to take our human nature to himself, if that does not entail his taking on the possibility of sin?

Or to put it another way, how could Jesus be the Saviour of sinners if he did not so identify with us as to take on our aptitude to sin?

Hence I firmly believe that, though Jesus did not sin, it was possible for him to do so.

Once again, however, we are not reliant solely on philosophical reasoning to reach this conclusion. Scripture itself gives us a very clear clue.

In Matthew chapter 4 and parallels, Jesus is driven into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. The devil actually tempted Jesus — three specific temptations are given in Matthew chapter 4, and a very similar list of three temptations in Luke chapter 4.

Now what does it mean that Jesus was “tempted by the devil” (Matthew 4:1), if in fact it were not possible for Jesus to succumb to that temptation? Surely, rather, the very fact he was tempted implies that it was possible for Jesus to sin.

God be thanked, Jesus resisted the devil. In this he did the opposite to what Adam had done. When Adam was tempted by the devil, he succumbed (Genesis 3:6-7); Jesus, however, resisted.



Such is my understanding of the answer to your question, Mustafa Muhammed Sahin, from the New Testament’s perspective. I believe that all three of the points I have demonstrated above are not only true and reasonable, but also demonstrable from the New Testament text.

I hope this has been helpful to you.


Muslim Wrote:

Hi Graham Harter thank you very much for your well written response, i do i must say understand your stance, that Jesus as you say had the possibility to “Sin” by his human nature.

However i will God willing point out the many inconsistencies even still by the many examples lets start for example with this one,

Many Christians that i know when they respond to the Muslim questions regarding, Jesus human nature for example he did not depend upon his own Godly powers to give him strength after being tempted by the devil, Jesus the the (God Man) suffered, at times “Angels” would come to give him healing( Luke 22:43), they would strengthen him. When Muslims would say, why did not Jesus if indeed he have TWO nature’s one being “divine” did not demand on that very “divine” nature to give him strength, rather looked else where for help?

Christian Apologist would say” oh but Jesus was teaching a lesson of humbling himself” as a Man.

Christian Apologist also say” God came down to earth as a Man so he can experience what its like to feel the pains of men, so he can be close to us and experience what we experience, this is why he went through human suffering. So it seems that “Jesus as a man God wished to experience all these human problems, feeling pain, suffering, choosed not to show him self to be “self sufficient”, this was all to prove how humble he is, Yet he never once wished to prove his ” Humbleness” to commit a Sin and the Humbleness of a sincere repentance was never achieved. If he did those things, that too me proves true humility and Humbleness, merely being a man proves nothing, as even man by nature can be cruel and arrogant.

I find that pretty bazzar. Is it possible the Gospel writers felt pretty un-comfortable to mention he was sinful? If it was so un-exceptable for Jesus to sin during his ministry, are we to believe he didn’t sin even during his youth, before his ministry? Are we to believe that Jesus wished to experience even ” death at the cross” yet never wished to experience even the smallest of the smallest sin, like a “swear word”.

Not even during his youth by the way, the bible leaves out much of his youth. Im really suprised ” Jesus” as a human being simply did not commit a sin. I mean why was he so “Shy” after all? The Christians would have said even if he did “Sin” well he was just humbling him self before God, and that was part of his “human nature”? If they had such a get out card for everything else why not allow him to sin, and use the same excuse it was just his ” Human nature” kapish!

Im thinking the Bible writers felt un-comfortable about it because they were i believe trying to prove this man was just to holy and God to even commit Sins. We even look at saintly figures today, who are so devout we think in our minds this guy is just to perfect to commit a sin, i believe this is how the Bible writers wished to write the Bible about Jesus. After all the Bible is just a perspective of man writing on behalf of Jesus, i don’t think Jesus ever said he never sinned, its more about what people thought to believe about him.

For example, the gospel writers were not there while Jesus was being tempted by the Devil. There were no eye-witnesses, Jesus was alone in the wilderness, and the bible account just says After 40 days he resisted Sin. No one can know this for sure, maybe Jesus did sin those nights and days in secret since he followed satan to begin with, and the Bible writers just proposed he over came not to sin any longer, but instead wrote, he resisted sin. In other words we are just getting the assumption of these gospel writers who were not there watching and observing each move of Jesus. As you know sins can also be commited in “Secret”. So how can they be sure from just a public observation? Well of course Christians then say, well the Bible is “inspired” but being “inspired” is not “enough” Christians like to convince themselves that there were many eye-witnesses to the crucified Christ and resurrected Christ, so then i ask where are these “witnesses to every secret move of Jesus? Well the answer is none.

Its interesting how this whole focus God made on Jesus in the 40 days and nights to overcome sin to prove the human nature resisted “Sin” why was God so interested in testing the man nature of Jesus? Its not as though the man nature of Jesus wil be going to heaven or hell, Jesus instead would be sitting on the throne as God no matter if Jesus resisted sin (via) his human nature or not. So why would God put Jesus through all that temptation? When its no value to the human nature of Jesus? Since there will be no human nature of Jesus in heaven rejoicing he passed the temptation. He will be fully God. Jesus only became Human nature to be slain on earth, in the hereafter he will be in his glorified body that is no longer, with the bad human qualities.

If Yahway was testing say, somebody else like, Judas then it would make sense in the wilderness, but to test Jesus who is just going to go to heaven regardless if he resisted sin or not makes no sense. Now i know what you will do, you may say well Jesus was teaching us a lesson to the rest of humanity no matter how tough it is we must resist satans temptations just to explain away these problems. However i would ask the Christian why then did you compare Jesus to Adam? Why did you try and compare Jesus is Greater then Adam for Adam failed and Jesus succeeded?

See its been all about Jesus to prove that he is better then everyone else, its not really about these stories being a lesson to everyone else. Thus why his God even in morality and even in human nature to resist sin, even though you dont wish to admit it, otherwise why compare Jesus human nature with Adams Human nature? Then blame adam not being as Good as Jesus human nature?

Like i said it would have been more, reasonable to test a person like Judas because its that very same human nature of Judas trying to prove obedience to obtain God’s salvation, Testing the obedience of Jesus is meaningless since he will end up in Paradise regardless since of course you believe his God. The only way it will make a little sense if he wasn’t God and thus God tested his 40 night obedience. And that Jesus did not in fact have these ” Two Natures”.

I think the bible writers are not being honest about Jesus and sin, we even have the story of the women brought to him for “adultery” Jesus said those “without sin” cast the first stone. Now Christians Apologist will tell you, Jesus didn’t believe she comited the sin, it was just a false charge.

My response would be suppose, she really did “Sin” would Jesus have been the first to frow the stone, since unlike her accusers, Jesus could have stoned her since he was without sin? So how does Jesus removing the law of stoning get based on a narrative that she was not guilty? If she was guilty then Jesus would have ought to submit to the mosaic law at the time. Well the interesting thing is Bible scholars are now telling us this passage is based on a “textural verience” which may indicate, that the law removing the stonning was just a interpolation invented by those who indulged in such behaviour and invented ideas about Jesus, to remove such a hefty punishment, in order to accommodate there evil desires.

Furthermore, was the bible writers at the same time trying to remove a harsh law for convenience for themselves at the same time trying, to de-value the rest of the jews trying to prove they are “not without sin” and only Jesus is sinless, Possibly! but this invented scribal deciete was based on a verience? Proving further exegerration.

Another point, if the condition of stoning a person in the O.T mosaic law for Adultery can only be applied by “Sinless people” then why would such a law be given by Yahway when the law can never be applied? Since the only one whom is ” Sinless” is apparently Jesus? To carry out this punishment, are we really to believe God reveals a law to Moses that can never be able to be applied unless Jesus turned up decades later, only to remove the law? How nonsensical, it makes no sense that this law is given to moses in a period where the law can’t be applied “since there are no sinless people since Jesus is the only without Sin

I believe if we went back to the Adultery Women event and asked ” Jesus himself if he was without sin along with the Jews. He would have testified he too is NOT without sin. If not he would have stood up and proclaimed it, instead sat silent.

There are two many contradictions. Im sorry if i got a little side tracked. It seems all these TWO nature ideas were invented in order to explain about the many problems when questioning the Divinity with Jesus. They did well but they unfortunately created more problems then solving them elsewhere.

All though Christians may say” its possible for Jesus human nature to sin in order to show the human nature has flaws, they even then still can’t imagine him sinning by that VERY nature because that would make his human nature no less then the human nature of Adam.

Jesus then wouldn’t be Greater in human nature then Adam thus there wouldn’t be proof he was more divine, thus Christians even still give special important emphasize to Jesus human nature to prove it’s greater then everyone else, thus make it equal to some what the nature of God, and nothing less when it’s convenient to do so, and that is exactly the attitude we see in Biblical Theology all about convenience and how to accommodate and super-impose my theory about Jesus to cherry pick a interpretation in order to prove Jesus is divine, and how do i wash down human flaws of Jesus when things are becoming to questionable about Jesus role in divinity. Well lets just Blame his human nature at the same time when its convenient will show how his human nature is more ” Godly” when it comes to the issues of the power to “resist sin” which apparently no human on earth was able to do so except for “Jesus” why is that?

No wonder, most Christians appeal to that very standard he must be God since he resisted “SIN”

Yet that very nature they appeal to ” is according the doctrine of the Trinity not divine”. Interesting!

Christians will say, O.k guys what will do is because we have been exposed on this, will just pretend Jesus was able to sin, but refused the sin.

I would argue, well isn’t the power of refusal every single time, divine in of its self, since no other human being can do like wise? Is this not a special quality only unique to God? Isn’t it true that Christians say Jesus was ” Too Perfect to Sin” which is another attribute of God!

Begs the Question do Christians really believe Jesus human nature is really equal to the Godly nature. It seems it is when its convenient, when its not and Jesus shows human errors as a Man God, will put another spin on it to cover up for our assertion Jesus is God.

A final absurdity, is that we are told Jesus is the “unblemished lamb” he came to take away all the sins he was a pure man, he never sinned yet we are told,

Christians say Jesus is faultless or sinless. But Jesus was the most sinful he took everyones sin on the cross. And paid the ultimate penalty. Even Jay smith admits Jesus the man sinned https://youtu.be/jbcIwmnimQw

Even Apostle Paul even said Jesus became a curse for us, for anyone hanged on a tree is cursed.

Galatians 3:13 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”

Why because Jesus took everyones sins and put it on himself thus why he paid the ultimate price (i.e) to be killed, so if this pure holy man became the most curseful person of all who had to pay the price wasn’t he then the ” Most Sinful” of all? If not why did Paul one of the outmost Authorities on the Bible declare such a Holy Man a curse? Surelly only a pure man, un-sinful man would be un-cursed. Yet Jesus was cursed, he took everyone’s sins and put it on himself the repercussions of those “SINS” were the result of his death, in other words Jesus paid for it, if Jesus didnt then others would be judged for there own sins, and pay the price, they didn’t Jesus paid for those sins himself.

I believe “Paul” should have called Jesus instead “blessed on the cross” but he couldn’t say that, for he represented “sin on the cross” a curse! Makes you wonder now, how did this man get killed sinless? For he took all sins onto himself??

In conclusion:

I hope this has uncovered for you the deeper questions that ought to be questioned, exposing the many levels of inconsistency when looking at the Two natures in order to prove divinity, it’s as though Christians just make things up as they go to trying to explain the many contradictions when trying to explain the Two natures, which by the way the bible “never” explicitly tells us “Jesus ” said he had TWO nature, its all clearly part of a conspiracy to invent untruthful lies about Jesus.


Please also visit


Allah mistake, Christians claim Jesus is the Literal Son of God?

Muslim vs Nakdimon Yasmeen from Answering-Islam.

Christian missionary like Nakdemon Yasmeen claim Christians do not claim Jesus is Gods literal Son, And Allah made mistake thinking Christian believe Yahway had intercourse to produce Jesus for why Allah says” If Allah had son then whos his wife?

Muslim Response:

Thank you Nakdimon for agreeing Jesus is not Gods literal Son. So the Christian interestingly is agreeing God does not have a Real Son?

When your claiming God not to have a literal Son are you claiming he had a fake Son? The Word Beggoten which means Children through Offspring of Intercourse.
Since that is the definition of Beggoten, Then Allah is not wrong to say Why claim God has a Son when he has no wife.

Christians don’t have to assert Son means Sexual intercourse to have a Son. Rather when they utter Beggoten and Literal Son even though they do not believe God had intercourse to produce a Son. Saying God begget a Son is equivalent in saying God produced Son through intercourse, because that is exactly what Begget Means. Open your dictionary. So God argues against those: “do not say God has literal Son otherwise its as Blasthemous to say as though God had sexual relations. Because thats what literal Sons signify a Product between Husband and Wife. In fact we even read in the Bible the Holy Spirit God overshadowed Mary upon Mary conceiving Jesus. Ask yourself what does over shadow mean? Notice yet again another sexual conatation is perceived, hence Allah is clearing up a misconception that can occur when such things are uttered. So Allah uses logical reasoning when you utter Sonship then you would be un-intentionally issueing Wifeship and even Mothership to God since Jesus is identified as God then what about his Mother? A Bigger God? Again this does not mean mainstream Christians believe all these things like God having a Mother who is s bigger God rather Allah is addressing the Fallacy in claiming such idea which have consequences. For example if i said Im married. You would Auto-Matically assume i will have Children. Same thing when you say” God has a Son it Auto-Matically puts the idea that God has a Wife or God impregnated Mary to begget Jesus. And if God had a Son then there would be 2 Gods instead of 1 God. These are all part of Gods reasonable arguements. Nothing to do with Allah not understanding Christian Theology rather Allah pointing out the un-accuracy of uttering such claims and Atributions to God.

Nakdimon Yasmeen wrote:

Answer the question. Where does the Bible teach that Jesus is the Literal Son of the Father?

Muslim Response (Yahya Snow)
Nakdimon don’t pretend Christians of the past only believed what you believe. There was a spectrum and there still is a spectrum of Christian beliefs. Some are biblical and some aren’t. So to say there weren’t any Christians who believed in Jesus being the literal son of God in Arabia is naive to say the least.

Muslim Reply:

Here is a Christian agreeing on the contarary Jesus is Gods literal Son watch:
Christian Pastor says” Jesus literal beggoten Son of God.

Sila at Answering Islam
Agrees its not a Metaphorical Son Ship written in his conclusion.

Nakdimon Yesman wrote:

You first have to prove people like Mark Martin existed!

Furthermore Suran 5:18 and 19:88-93 say Allah doesn’t have figurative sons either! Therefore your distinguishing of the two is completely irrelevant as Allah argues against BOTH literal and figurative sonship! But in both cases Allah contradicts both the Bible and therefore orthodox christian teaching. Hence doesnt matter how you slice it ALLAH IS WRONG! For your question to be valid you first have to demonstrate how one cannot be a real son without being a literal son. Good luck with that!

Muslim Response:

Mark Martin actually left Being A jehovas Witness and Yes he exists.

This is his video and he uploaded it. Jesus is the Literal Beggoten Son of God.

As for Sureh 5:18 you misqouted the verse.

The verse does not reject the figurtive son ship rather that the Jews and Christians assertion that being the Sons of God that God will LOVE them and Pardon them.

So because they were the figurtive sons of God they thought God will love them more hence pardon them.

So nothing about Allah rejecting the figurtive relationship.

As for Sureh 19:88-89
Same thing nothing about figurtive Son rejection rather addressing those in the likes of you who claim God has taken a Son.

You then Qouted”
For your question to be valid you first have to demonstrate how one cannot be a real son without being a literal son. Good luck with that!


You said Jesus is not Gods literal Son. Rather He is Gods Real Son.

Do you see the Contradiction.

The word (literal) does mean its (Real) otherwise it would only mean its Fake Son. The opposite of (Real)

So you work out your own delemare.


Jesus Christ Son of God or Servant of God? Response to Matt Slick.

By: Mustafa Sahin

Refuting Matt Slick: You can read his arguement here or read screen shots bellow from his blog: https://carm.org/jesus-god-or-servant

Muslim – Response:

Matt Slick suggests that when the Term Son of God is in reference to Jesus it is refering to Jesus being equal with God. And he Qoutes: John 5:18.

However when we read (John 5:18) the verse speaks not about Jesus who is claiming Equality rather the Jews who were Enemy to Jesus Christ were making the assertion that Jesus was claiming Equality. Therefore Matt Slick tried to put a spin on it as if it were True. Following the Narrative of Jesus Enemies in stead of Jesus own confirmation. In fact the Enemies of Jesus also claimed Jesus was Possesed and did Miracles through the devil will Matt Slick follow there Narrative on that one?
Remember the Jews were trying to find any excuse to catch Jesus on Blasthemy so it would give them an excuse to get Jesus Killed as Jews were known to be Prophet Killers(Mathew 23:7) If they could make up lies and false charges to get him killed they will go ahead and do that, for why Jesus called them being the Sons of the Devil for there lies and Murders(John 8:44)

In fact this very next verse in the Bible completely debunks Matt Slick:
Phillipians 2:6.
“Jesus being in the very nature of God did not CLAIM EQUALITY with God somthing to be grasped”.

So the Christian arguement completely falls flat on it’s face in fact it not only Refutes Matt Slick but also the Jews making the false Charge against Jesus Christ.

Matt Slick asserts that the Son Term and Servant Term are of diffrent Catagories.
And Jesus was sent to Serve humanity.

Matt Slick im sorry but your Bible disagrees with you open up the (King James Version Acts: 3.26) Jesus is refered to as Gods Son.

Now: Open up ( New King James Version Acts: 3.26) Bible Translaters have swaped the Word (Son) for (Servent).

Therefore proving that the term “Son” was related to being the same as “Servant” of God.
And certainly not diffrent.

Furthermore: The Jewish understanding of the term ‘son of God’ was never understood to be literal. The term ‘son of God’ is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to figures who were beloved and chosen by God
Exodus 4:22-23.(Jewish Encyclopedia: son of god) In Greek manuscripts of the synoptic gospels bear the terms ‘pais/paida’ or ‘huios’ throughout. The translators of the Holy Bible translated in such a way as to force the reader to understand the verses in a certain way. There are no capital letters in either Greek or Hebrew, for example. In Greek, ‘pais’ means ‘servant.’ And where ‘huios’-‘son’ was used, once again, it could be used to denote a filial relationship. (see Wisdom ii. 13, 16, 18; v. 5, where “the sons of God” are identical with “the saints”; comp. Ecclus. [Sirach] iv. 10)

Notice Matt Slick: forces the Term Son to be diffrent or at higher position then Servent by refering to other passages in the Bible like

(John 1:1) In the Beggining was the Word, Word was with God. The Word Was God. Made into Flesh.


(Colossians 2:9) Where Jesus is said to have God in him. In the Bodily form.

This is another Christian misinterpretation, as the Bible tells us Jesus spoke in a figurative way or Parables read

“Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ (Matthew 13:13-15 NKJV)

There for Jesus was Gods word and Representative, and the Word made Flesh meaning Jesus was sent to earth to deliver Gods message in the Flesh. Period, only Figurtively.

The same for (Collosians 2:9) One could understand it to be in a Figurtive way that Jesus bodily contains God.
It is only Gods divine message inside Jesus. As Jesus is Gods representative.

In fact reading (John 17:21) “Jesus said i and father are one. And you (Desciples) are also in the father and in us.

So it is clear that if Matt Slick wants to take John 1:1 & Colossians 2:9 to be literal then he has to be consistent and accept John 17:21 that the Desciples of Jesus are also GODS for they are contained within the same Body of God & Christ.

Matt slick then goes onto making the claim Jesus had both a Human nature and Godly nature. But i can assure you that there is no explicit statement as such, Matt Slick will pull a verse from here and there to try and conflate the two together make up a Theology. In fact we can do the very same thing as follows:

John 17:12 The Jewish Desciples of Jesus are contained inside Jesus therefore making them Equal with God. And John 10:34 The Jews the Desciples of Jesus are called (Gods) Theos.

There you go, i conflated the two together and i produced evidence for more Gods for the Holy Trinity.

The New Holy Trinity.
Desciples+Jesus+Holy Spirit+ Father.

Therefore it is clear that what ever spin Matt Slick likes to put on it his arguements are nothing but a straw man with many holes and inconsistency to force Jesus to be more then he is. When Jesus shows flaws in his powers Christians run to say Jesus had a Human nature, but when he performs miracles it suddenly becomes a Godly nature. Yet the Human nature they tell us is without Sin?
Why is it without Sin if the Human nature is not meant to be God? Therefore Christians do assert both natures are Perfect because the human nature can with stand against SIN, but soon as they get caught out they quickly blame the flaws on human nature, to rescue Jesus from looking like the Un-Godly figure.

That’s called:

“Convience in the English language”!


Luke 19:27 Jesus in a Parable, preached a literal Jihad.

Last updated on: 28th May. 2021

By: Mustafa Sahin

Unfortunately there are Christian missionaries who are being manipulative with there Bible regarding a passage which they claim does not preach violence. Rather they argue it’s just a parable. So in this article we are going to explore if Luke 19:27 as they claim is just a parable, or in fact a parable combined with a future reality. You will in the end see, it indeed is a reality and Jesus did indeed preach Jihad against his enemies.

Bible & commentary.
Read for yourself;

See how Jesus comes back in the End times, to slaughter Jews who did not accept him as their king.

John gills commentary; On Luke 19:27


But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Gills commentary of the verse says;

……when Christ shall come a second time, of which his coming to destroy the Jewish nation was an emblem and pledge, will be punished with everlasting destruction by him; and then all other enemies will be slain and destroyed, sin, Satan, the world, and death: of the first of these the Jews say..

“in the time to come the holy, blessed God, will bring forth the evil imagination (or corruption of nature), (wjxwvw) , “and slay it before” the righteous, and the wicked.”



As you can clearly read, John gills agrees that this passage, is a reality Jesus will come back and destroy his enemies.

Christian Apologist named Sam Shamoun also affirms that Modern day Israel is anti Christ Prophecy, and an abomination to the Lord:

Listen and watch short clip:


Even Zionist Jews in Israel today says, we killed Jesus and we are proud of it.


Thus Jesus will come back to slaughter these Zionist who were an enemy to christ according to the Prophecy and parable mentioned in Luke.

A Christian Apologist named David Wood, tries to respond to Luke 19:27.

He basically tries to play down the idea of there being violence. But we will expose him.

David wood video:

David wood argues, to say this passage describes a story of another king, that slaughtered people.

But then Listen to this part.
He said, all though it’s a parable describing another king. When Jesus returns, in second coming he will judge his enemies.

Well that’s exactly the point. So the parable explaining what a previous king did, is what Jesus will also do. Somthing David wood was trying to dismiss. And now he agrees, it will also apply to Jesus in a second coming.
Exactly what I said using the commentary. Meaning Jesus will do the same as the king in reality as mentioned in the parable. David then says: “no desciple at the time, went out and did what jesus told them to do”. Thus trying to assume Luke 19:27 was not meant to be understood as being literal application for Jesus and his deciples.

However David is either lying or being dishonest, because all though they didn’t carry out Jihad then does not mean they will not carry it out in the future tense. Which is the second coming of Jesus. Which we will see bellow.

David wood then argues to say, if your an Atheist you don’t have to worry about this, cause you don’t believe in the verse or Jesus.

But thats irrelevant what Atheists believe. The fact of the matter is Christians do believe there will be a judgement and Jesus will return and slay those who did not accept him as there king.

David wood, then argues He and the Angels will be doing the judging (slaughtering). Claiming that other Christians would not be involved in the judgement meaning (slaughtering).

Firstly there is a problem with Davids assumption. David is suggesting Jesus will be only slaughtering his enemies with the Angels.

Which is our point that being Jesus will wage Jihad, it shows Jesus will be a warrior to slay the unbelievers. Secondly David either lied or is ignorant by saying, the slaughtering will “Only” be done by Jesus and the Angels.

However this is wrong. Because the Bible says, the desciples will also be part of the judgement.

Read: Mathew 19:28 & Luke 22:30

So David wood clearly lied or his just ignorant of his bible, to assume Christians are not commanded to do violence. And Yet we see in the second coming of Jesus. Jesus and the Angels including his desciples will judge the 12 tribes of Israel and slaughter them on judgement day. When Jesus and the desciples return to Israel, and slaughter those who did not accept him as king.

There are other Christians who say, well that’s Armageddon in the end times. And Jesus will send them to hell.

Well excuse me? How is that peaceful? That’s still Jihad. Jesus will make war against his enemies, and burn them in his slaughter, somthing that ISIS in Syria/Iraq does by burning their captives in cages. So I don’t know how Christians are justifying it saying, it’s Armageddon and Jesus uses fire. There is no difference between using guns, swords or fire to inflict suffering on your enemies. Jihad is Jihad, so stop pretending to present a peaceful loving Jesus who does not believe war against his enemies, this is certainly not true. Jesus and his deciples and angels will swiftly come and punish those enemies in the most severest ways.

Yet another apologetic link found here:


Christian named Daniel Tomlin writes:

Claiming it was only a parable.

They write towards the end, Jesus commanded to love one another, not kill one another. That was Muhammad. .

My response again,

When Jesus comes back, will he not bring judgement? And punishment? Or him coming back to bring Judgement is also a parable? Funny you say Jesus came to teach love and not killing. And Yet Jesus will come a second time, bringing judgement which is hell fire to those who rejected him. That’s not love and peace now is it?

Stop being deceitful now Christians. It’s not just a parable. Jesus will act upon that same parable and bring his judgement to the world and slaughter Jews for rejecting him. Period.

By the way,

See this video where David wood admits His Jesus done really bad things in the old testament as the God of the Old Testament. He even admits it bothers him.

Finaly read from yet another Christian Fatwah website:


Jesus will come with his army a second time. And Bring his wrath and Judge and WAR

After Jesus ascended into heaven, the angels declared to the apostles, “‘Men of Galilee,’ they said, ‘why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven’” (Acts 1:11). Zechariah 14:4 identifies the location of the second coming as the Mount of Olives. Matthew 24:30 declares, “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.” Titus 2:13 describes the second coming as a “glorious appearing

The second coming is spoken of in greatest detail in Revelation 19:11-16, “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter.’ He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS

There are some Christians who assert by saying, in Jesus second coming. Jesus will only send devils and bad angels to hell. That’s who He will go to war with. They write things like; Jesus will not slay those sinners but they will be sent to hell prepared for devil and his angels.

My response to this;

However, when reading Biblical context it’s not just the Devils and Angels Jesus will go to War with, but it also includes the Sinners of human beings. Take a read;

8 But the cowardly, the UNBELIEVING, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

Revellations 21:8

This is the SECOND (Slay) death.

So as one can see, Jesus will go to War with Demons, Angels, Sexually immoral, Unbelivers ( Humans) etc.

So much for there assertion of a New Testament Biblical version of a Peaceful Jesus.

Some Christians assert that the term (sword) in the Bible, doesn’t refer to physically Punishing people by putting them to the sword. They write things like, Jesus is referring to false peace and sword of truth/Spirit which is the “words” of God( Ephesians 6; 17) .

My response to this:

Ephesians: Yep lets read:
6:17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Yes the Sword can refer to the Word.

Jesus by his Words example by (command)will cast people into hell.

So there is “No escape” for Christians trying to Manipulate the text. It is thus clear, that Jesus will go to war, with his command and cast people to hell.

So much for a peaceful Jesus!

A Christian wrote:

My Response:


You said the angel already kill them how can they be killed a second time.

Read there is a second death. Even if you like to go to that route:

The term “second death” occurs four times in the New Testament, specifically in Revelation 2:11, 20:6, 20:14 and 21:8. According to Revelation 2:11 and 20:6, those who overcome the devil’s tribulation are holy and have a part in the first resurrection will not experience the second death.

So in otherwords those who reject Jesus, will have a “second death”.

So even when you assert the angels do the first slaughter. Jesus and the disciples do the second slaughter, with Hell Fire.

Christian Wrote:

My Response:

They will sit on thrones. Killing people like ISIS does by judging them to hell fire which the disciples who take part in the judgment.

You just admitted yourself it will be a second death.

Also saying angels will do it. Doesn’t make it any better.

That’s still Jesus using angels to slaughter unbelievers.

Also, torturing souls in everlasting hell, is still suffering.

Christian Applogist Matt Slick, even shows it’s physical torment of the body and not just the soul.


This is what Matt Slick says concerning Hell fire. That its not just a place for a soul. But it also consists of body.



Hell is a real place.  It is not mere unconsciousness.  It is not temporal.  It is eternal torment.  Perhaps that is why Jesus spoke more of hell than heaven and spent so much time warning people not to go there.  After all, if people just stopped existing, why warn them?  If it was temporal, they’d get out in a while.  But if it were eternal and conscious, then the warning is strong.

Jesus said, “And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.  30 And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell,” (Matt. 5:29-30).


See also another Christian Apologist Website describe Bodies feeling pain in afterlife.


Also, notice the Christian failed to address what the disciples are judging? Are they judging a Maths Exam? 1+1+1= 1?

Or perhaps they are judging unbelievers with Hell fire and Gods Wrath?

It is clear, that they will judge and this judgements will consists of being responsible for sending unbelieves to be both spiritually and physically tortured in Hell fire.

Christian wrote:

My Response:

You then argued is a judge responsible for killing them.

Um yes.

There is no difference between a Mafia boss ordering the slaughter. And the executioner.

Both will face imprisonment. No matter who swings the 🪓

In conclusion this Christian to the least admitted Jesus will use Angels to perform Jihad and slaughter the impure (Unbelievers)

See again:

This is their peaceful Jesus? Or Jihadi Jesus? So this Christian has proved, Luke 19:27 is not just a parable, but a Jihad that will be conducted against Unbelieves.

Interesting the same Christian folks, accuse Muslims killing unbelievers for Allah. Despite Angels in Christianity killing for Jesus whom they call their God.

Furthermore, this same Christian says in other posts;

the disciples will only:

Judge the mans life. Like if He was a good person, etc. And it has nothing to do with execution.

My Response:

So they will judge him to hell if He lived a life of unbelief.

Well thank you.

I’m actually pretty intrigued that you are again very committed, that God won’t use followers of Jesus to perform Jihad in the afterlife.

Despite your God already practising Jihad using humans to kill other infidels in both 1 Samuel 15:3 and Numbers 31.

So it’s not as though your God didn’t perform Jihad using his human followers.

Christian Apologist David Wood even concedes to the old testament showing bad things.

enough said.