Latest information on Biblical Preservation

Last updated: 4th, Jan. 2022

Christian Scholars and Apologist admit Error’s in the Bible.

Bart Ehrman VS Wallace, see how Dr Ehrman proves the Bible can’t be trusted to another Scholar

Does the Errors in the Bible in Textural criticism effect the central or essential message or doctrine in Christianity?

Can Textural Criticism correct the Bible to affirm a true Preservation?

See also:


Also visit:

Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?

Who wrote the Gospel of Mathew?

Testing the Historocity of the Gospel of Luke:

Who wrote the Gospel of John:

Testing the Historicity of the 4 Gospels

Is the Bible better attested then the Quran?


The Lost and Missing Early Gospels:


Contradictions and Errors in the Bible, can the Four Gospels historically realiable?


Prophet Muhammed (Pbuh) in Bible. 1 John 4:1-4

Last updated: 28th May 2020

By: Mustafa Sahin

Christians often tell Muslims there is no evidence in the Bible, of the Prophecy of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), foretold in the Bible. So in this paper, I will prove to you using (1 John 4:1-4) to prove to the Christian readers that this passage no doubt give evidence of the coming of future Prophets. I shall include Christian responses, and show how these arguments can be countered. So let us begin:

Read the passage:


So what we can see from the above verse; the term spirit is in conjunction with a Prophet. Though this passage talks about how to recognize a false spirited Prophet. It also tells us how to recognize truthful spirited Prophets.

The verse above also tells us, that Prophets will come to you, in the future tense, and so it advises us, how to recognize them. This proves that the Bible endorsed accepting future Prophets so long as they fit well with the definition, of how we define who is the truthful spirited Prophet. So what are the criteria that need to be established to determine a truthful prophet?

He must acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.

So does the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) fit this criterion? Certainly, there are many passages in the Quran, where the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) attested a Book, that clarifies Jesus to come in the flesh:

A Comprehensive Listing of References to Jesus ('Isa) in the Qur'an

Answering Christian Objection 1:

Christian will say Muhammed is in the Bible, but only when it refers to “False spirit in 1 john 4:1


Yet all this time, Christians argue the Prophet is never in the Bible? But only when Christians want to prove he’s a “False Prophet”, he suddenly appears in 1 John 4:1?

Interesting Hey?

So if the Prophet can be in 1 john 4:1, why then He can not be in 1 john 4:2? As the Truthful spirited Prophet?

Answering Christian Objection 2:

Jesus said the one who denies the Son Denies the Father. Therefore Muhammed denies the “Sonship” and “Fathership”. Therefore he denied Jesus to come on flesh.


The term “Son” can be understood in the Bible as “Servent”.

Read: Some translations have “Son ” changed to “Servent”.

The Quran also affirms this read:

Jesus said, ” indeed, I am the servant of Allah He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet. (Quran 19:30)

So the term, Son is clearly “metaphorical” because it can mean Servant, just like the term” Father” is also understood as being Metaphorical. Because even Apostle Paul claimed to be All our ” Father” read:

Paul said; 15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Source: http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/4-15.htm

Therefore these terms such as Father and Son, do not mean in the real sense, rather they are more inclined to a metaphorical sense. Thus Prophet Muhammed does not Deny Jesus as a Servant of God nor denied the Father in a Metaphorical sense in the biblical language as the God of this Universe. Jesus in the Bible refers to himself even as the; “The Son of Man”. (Mathew 12:8)

But Jesus is not Man’s son, He’s God’s Son, right? So how can He be called Son of Man? Well, it’s now clear, that terms such as “Son of Man, or Son of God, are all “Metaphorical” Terms.

After all, Jesus spoke on, Parables, Metaphors and allegories


Answering Christian Objection 2:

I find this one pretty hilarious, a Christian by the name of Tonu writes;

That Prophet Muhammed does not believe in Jesus quoting: (John 8:24) So I replied this was pretty idiotic. Because Muslims (I.e) the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) believe in the Personhood of Jesus.



So what does the desperate Christian do, He tries to twist the Quran, to appeal that the Quran is talking about a “different Jesus”.  However, this has been refuted here:

Mary, daughter of Amram, sister of Aaron: A Qur’anic error or deliberate allusion?

Now, this gets even more interesting, if Christians honestly believe that, the Qur’anic Jesus is a “different Jesus” and not the Jesus of Christianity who was born from a virgin? Then why do “Christians appeal to this Sureh:


Christians say this is “Evidence” Jesus died on the Cross” according to the Quran. “And the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive”.

Of course, the Islamic position is, this is talking about “Jesus second coming” where He (Jesus) will be sent to the earth a second time, will die a natural death, then rise from the dead.

In any case, Christians still use Sureh 19:33, to prove to Muslims, that the same Jesus of the Bible, who died on the Cross, is the very same Jesus in the Quran (Sarah 19:33).

So as you can see, we are seeing a huge inconsistency, from Christians like Tonu. Where He desperately tries to claim, Jesus of the Quran is a different Jesus to the Bible, but then His same Christian folks, try to selectively Quote certain verses of the Quran to prove the very same Jesus of the Bible!

Answering Christian Objection 3:

Christian writes, quoting 1 john 4:1-4 the part where it says; ……… Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,



Both, Mario and Tonu, are suggesting Prophet Muhammed’s God, is not the same God as Jesus.

However, it gets really, interesting because Christian Apologists like “Christian Prince” tries to even prove “Allah is a Trinity”.


So if Christians like Mario and Tonu want to, prove Allah is a different God than the one Jesus had in the Bible, why then do other Christian Apologists appeal to the Quran, to prove that Allah is a “Triune God”, just as the Biblical God?

Interesting Hey?

As Dr James White says” Inconsistency is the sign of a failed arguement”

Anyhow, the fact is if we put to the side, the opinionated theological differences, then both the Qur’anic and the Biblical God are the “same God”, thus Prophets Muhammad’s God, and Jesus God is the same.

Answering Christian Objection 4:



So the assertion here is, that if the Prophet Muhammed is a true Prophet and did confirm Jesus came in the flesh, He the Prophet Muhammed needs to confirm the correct theological belief about Jesus, that being is that the Prophet needs to affirm that Jesus is God. But let me just take you back for a moment, when we look at 1 John 4:1-4.

Nowhere in this “passage does it say, the spirit of truth “The prophet” must confess Jesus has come in the flesh “as God”. Thus this is not the criteria. Rather all the verse says is;

Quote: “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God”.

Notice nowhere does the verse ever say, He must declare “God is with Us in Jesus”.  Thus it’s clear, a Christian is forcing separate criteria to the one mentioned in (1 John 4:1-4).

Anyhow, you can see this article: https://mustafasahin33.wordpress.com/2020/04/30/figurtive-literal-games-in-the-bible/

Where we prove, that terms like being called “God” or “Son of God” are to be understood in Metaphorical Terms as Godly People.

Answering Christian Objection 5:



Prophet, Muhammed (PBUH) is a sinner? Therefore He, can not be the Truthful Spirit, in 1 John 4:1-4?

Read what Apostle  Paul said;


We are told that “Apostle Paul” who admits His the Worst of Sinners, Yet Christians don’t reject Paul, or his letters, now do they? They have no issue in accepting Paul as a Prophet. Also another reminder, the criteria of (1 john 4:1-4) does not say, the spirit of truth (Prophet) must be “Free of Sin”.  So again a Christian has forced his criteria to the text. Additionally are Christians really, assuming that the Prophet to come, must be “Sinless”? And yet I thought, that the only one without “Sin” was to be Jesus Christ. So are Christians assuming that there is to come to another “sinless being like Jesus?

Interesting Hey?

Answering Christian Objection 6:

Jesus is the “only way”




Now even more interesting if Jesus was “The only way” for all times, He wouldn’t be preaching about future Prophets to come would He? Which He did in (1 John 4:1-4).

Now I have a crossfire section  with the Christian missionary:








  1. Note: We already answered the claim for “Sinner”.


As you can see the Christian is in denial and does not wish to list the truthful spirited “foretold Future Prophets as prophecised in (1 John  4:1-4), and the Christian just wishes to talk about the False ones, so all I could do is get reminded by what Jesus said;


And what the Quran has said;


Allah, (SWT) Has spoken the Truth, they will continue to conceal the “Future Prophets”. Until Allah (SWT) confronts them on the Day of Judgement.


Note: even if a Christian claims Apostle Paul was a Prophet after Jesus, this does not disqualify the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) because “Testing the Spirits are in the Plural, as the Christian himself admitted, meaning it doesn’t have to refer to one. It could be one, but it doesn’t have to mean only one, according to the Bible, and of course one needs to also reason that, Paul himself never called himself “A Prophet”. Unlike the Prophet Muhammed. See our bellow article,  where we talk about this further in yet another passage of the Bible indicating another Prophecy about Prophet Muhammed (Pbuh) see:

John  1:20-21 https://mustafasahin33.wordpress.com/2020/05/18/prophet-muhammed-pbuh-in-the-bible/


Nabeel Qureshi Wife made False Prophecy in the name of the Holy Spirit

Christian Apologist Nabeel Qureshi, Wife made a “False Prophecy” about God saving Nabeel from his illness. 

See the video:


Click on this link to view the Video: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=828314077330844&id=100004567772338

She quotes as saying:

” I believe the Lord gave peace this means; this is going to lead to healing, I believe this is coming from the “Holy Spirit”.

Of course, this False Prophecy turned out False, and Nabeel Passed away.

Please don’t be offended or think im mocking Nabeel death. I am not, im just questioning these apparent, feelings and revelations of the Holy Spirit telling Nabeel’s wife and assuring Her, that Her husband Nabeel illness “will lead to his healing”. She made a definitive statement, and claimed She believes it’s coming to her from The Holy Spirit”

This is the same family that would say Nabeel had “visions” before his conversion to Christianity. And this was a “sign” Christianity was the true religion!

Now for my interaction with a Christian on this Subject of False Prophecy foretold by Nabeels Wife.

Christian wrote:

More videos on nabeel from a Muslim but you’re all convinced you have no malice or ill intention when posting them.
This is a propaganda video, watch the whole thing. For one he names his church in Texas, which is a baptist church. This is meant to continue to smear his name because he preached at bethel.
How many young mothers and wives out there would love God to heal their husbands and not be left as single mums struggling to raise a child alone but you’ve twisted it to make it seem evil or not good to want to believe in a positive outcome.
Why don’t you deal with Christians like Matt chandler who had stage 4 brain cancer or tumours however you say it and God healed him and he’s still preaching years after they took a huge chunk of his brain out. God does heal and making fun of people looking for it is sinful.
If Islam is real why do you lot feel the need to dance and celebrate the death of this man?


If you have seen the whole video what exactly did we misinterpret? Her statements are clear, she said along those lines, “she felt that the Spirit inspired her that Nabeel will be healed”. She passed on a definitive response. We wouldn’t have gone after Nabeel if he wasn’t making claims that he accepted Christianity and left Islam because one of those reasons was based on visions and dreams from the Holy Spirit. Why are you feeling so disheartening? Im 100% certain that had Nabeel Survived you Christians would have praised Nabeel Wife and her visions, but when it turns out false you want to play the victim card?

It’s not our fault that Nabeels Family were insisting on definitive statements to prove a Miracle through Nabeels Trauma. So my advice next time is “tone it down” and stop preaching that the Holy Spirit speaks to you with words of Healing, that way no one will complain when the guy doesn’t get healed, it is plain and simple. If any Christian makes such definitive claims and didn’t survive I can assure you we would have gone after him too. And “Yes” Mothers out there can ask for healing, but there is one thing asking, and another thing claiming you had a definitive response, which seems to be what Nabeel Wife suggested.

If Matt Chandler’s wife went on social media said she had a vision of Prophet Muhammed saying he will Survive in Hospital concerning her Husband. All the Christian Apologists would have criticized these visions, once He passed away.

Christian wrote:

Thanks for accepting that you’re going after him. All these posts and everyone is claiming no malice but at least you’re honest.
My problem with this after he died Muslims were posting that he had lost his faith and was going to bizarre lengths to get healed. This video continues that thread.
I wonder if you were dying your wife would give you and your people words of confronting or give you the worst-case scenario. She’s comforting her husband and giving him hope and it’s quite wicked to turn it into something to rejoice over.
I wonder how many Muslims will start drinking after this, you seem so eager to celebrate a win that I think someone might buy some champagne to toast the death of this young father.


  1. Again I dont know how much more clear I can make it, we are not going after and picking on Nabeels suffering rather going after and pointing out the false Prophecy made in the name of the Holy Spirit. Again, there is a difference between giving hope like, saying things like you believe that God will heal you and another thing claiming that you received a definitive response from the Holy Spirit that “he will heal you”. That is now a “Clear False Prophecy in the Holy Spirit name” And giving a False hope, which is quite sad. I couldn’t care less if you think we are celebrating, it’s another thing when you’re trying to wash it down like it is nothing. Like I said earlier, had Nabeel Survived you would have celebrated the Prophecy made by his Wife, and please stop pretending that you wouldn’t have. You guys would have lynched on the opportunity and made tons of videos about how Nabeel surviving this was another miracle healing promised by Nabeels Wife’s Holy Spirit.

Christian wrote:

Did she say it was a vision or a feeling inside of her like a hope.?


These are her words:

1-  She said “I believe the Lord gave peace”

2-  She said: “This meant: healing”.

3-  She said: She believed: “it was from the Holy Spirit”.

So I dont know how you like to interpret it? vision or feeling?

Whatever floats your boat. She claimed to know how the Holy Spirit conveys the message. Nabeel’s wife said:  “He will be healed”. Well more accurately the Holy Ghost. So stop pretending it’s not a ” failed Prophecy”. It is clear.

Christian wrote:

His wife was proven wrong and people need to stop putting words in Gods’ mouth, they end up looking stupid if proven wrong.


So you finally admit, his wife was proven wrong. Why then should anyone believe the rest of the stuff that comes out of their mouths concerning Nabeels visions? If his wife Got it wrong about the Holy Spirit working through her why should we accept Nabeel visions? Regarding one of the reasons why Christianity was true, Maybe that too are fraudulent tales like his own wife’s narrative.

Christian wrote:

The fact that he’s dead means she was wrong but I don’t see any malice in a wife comforting her dying husband. I wouldn’t have used those words but it’s wicked that the man hasn’t been buried and stupid little things like this are being thrown around. Goes to show just how well he lived his life because you’re all on a witch hunt and this is the level you’re stooping to over a dead man and his grieving widow.


So why is Nabeel’s wife, giving falsified Prophecy? Is this how Yahway looks after Nabeel gives him a false preacher wife, to lie or mislead Nabeel? And maybe Yahway gave Nabeel also a fake preacher like David Wood who also tricked him?

Christian wrote:

You’re taking something so small and making it so big. I don’t think anything changes whether you accept his visions or not. Many people in the Muslim world are having them.
You’ve already rejected the guy, let him rest in peace.


Many Muslims are not having these visions. As even your bible says that the Devil can appear as the Angel of light. For all, I care they were getting false visions like Nabeel’s wife and possibly Nabeel himself. So yeh sad these guys got deceived. David wood his teacher the bigger deceiver sent this guy to hell if He did die indeed unrepented.

(Another) Christian wrote:

How is what you said any different than what I said? She BELIEVED God was going to heal her husband. Doesn’t Jesus tell us to ask and believe?? This is a ridiculous argument to me. I have Muscular Dystrophy which is 100% fatal and I’m in a wheelchair. I shouldn’t be alive right now yet I BELIEVE he’ll keep me around longer, but like Nabeels his wife, I’ll still believe EVEN IF he doesn’t. This doesn’t make me a false prophet because I’m doing what Jesus told me to do, ask, knock, believe.


You wrote: “She BELIEVED God was going to heal her husband”.

That’s not the only thing she believed. She said, that her belief, came to her by the Holy Spirit. So it wasn’t as though, she had her opinion that He would be healed, rather she mentioned, she believed this inspiration was coming to her from the Holy Spirit.

She acted as though she was having an interaction with the Holy Spirit as though he was some Golfing buddy, which slipped a bit of information to her that Nabeel will be healed. Now that’s very different from acknowledging God can heal. And like I said, had Nabeel been healed, Nabeel would have made a video glorifying his wife’s interaction with the holy spirit as a true Prophecy, saying this is how the Holy Spirit speaks to us, David wood would have also clinched on the opportunity and would have made Nabeels Wife his female “Saint”. So let’s not pretend they would have not jumped on the opportunity to make a miracle out of Nabeel’s wife’s inspirations she believed came from the Holy Spirit. So yes since she claims that the Holy Spirit told her by a feeling he will be saved. And since He died, Then “yes” she made a false Prophecy. There is no Escape!

Another Christian recently also posted a response, and I responded, He agrees that it was “a minor false Prophecy



Also, more evidence: Nabeel didn’t exactly accept his fate. He never gave up on God sending miracles, while even going into palliative care, He requested Christians to “Pray for a Miracle” See here – https://youtu.be/kZpPhDzgdzg

Nabeel has also produced frequent videos never to give up, on Christians performing Miracles. He even suggested they can do; “Greater” miracles than Jesus”! See here: https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/01/03/nabeel-qureshi-truechristians-do-greater-miracles-than-jesus-exegesis-of-john-1412-14/

It seems, no true Christians left out there to show us a greater miracle than Jesus, and raise Nabeel from the Dead?

(Bellow) The Christian again says, suppose they made an “Honest Blunder”:



And now (bellow) the Christian is pretty annoyed so his now trying to have a poke at Islam:


And here below is a Video ” indicating that Nabeel” was Skeptical about the Bible and doubted it, in his last days:

Nabeel was made to get on his knees to ask God for “Forgiveness” pushed on by his Bible adviser. Nabeel was at the very low point of his Faith in Christianity, towards the end days of his ministry.

Is this how strong, his conviction in Christianity was after all those years, bashing Islam?


Now for some Screenshots, of other Christians who have been left embarrassed by Nabeel Wife’s False Prophecy. And here are the comments of those Christians who also “Testify Nabeel Wife was proven; “Wrong, Stupid, a false Prophet, Foolishness and Ignorance.




As you can see, infighting began among Christians about this, and the fact is, it was “a False Prophecy” and whatever feeling Nabeel wife got, what she felt, she claimed it was from the Holy Spirit. And now that it’s been proven False, all Christians can do is label Nabeels Wife, ignorant for not understanding her feelings. Though I can almost guarantee if Nabeel Survived, the same people, accusing Nabeels wife of ignorance, would have put her on a pedestal and turned her into “Hail Mary” but since it turned out False, let’s just blame the individual and shift blame away from Christianity that teachers “inspiration through the Holy Spirit”. Yep, you guessed it, When a False Prophecy happens that’s the fault of the individual, if a true prophecy happens, that’s the Holy Spirit! Convenience perhaps?

These are the same Christians who have given us soap operas from Nabeel having “Visions and Dreams“, before his conversion from Ahmediya to Christianity, and that it was a sign Christianity was the True Religion! Nabeel speaks about being at some feast, and this feast represented heaven, and his friend David was blocking the door, and the only way He could come to the feast is if He accepts Jesus.

See here:

Perhaps they are false revelations also? Oh no of course not, they are “True” ones! Right.

Well let us see, evidence that Nabeel seems to make up a story due to clear contractions:

See more on Nabeel Qurashi:


Are the four Gospels first hand Eye-Witness accounts?

Last update: 17/05/2022


By Mustafa Sahin

Note: Bellow there is a rebuttal section to a Christian also read the Debate.

Most Christians say” The Four Gospels were written by the Four Disciples of Jesus Christ known as Mark, Luke, Mathew and John.

Even Christian apologists like (Nakdemon Yesman) and many Christians believe that the Gospels were written by Contemporary Witnesses. What contemporary means is that those were the Eye-Witnesses living at the same time as Jesus and directly recorded the events as Desciple of Jesus Christ

Well is this so? Let us see what another Christian colleague to Nakdemon is another Apologist Matt Slick and his testimony on the subject:

Please notes that Both Nakdemon and Matt Slick together write articles on the Answering-Islam.com website. They’re basically on the same team.

Matt Slick Quotes:

1: Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life.

2: Luke was not an eyewitness to the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness to Christ’s life.

3: Mathew. Matt Slick tells us again nothing about Mathew Being an Eye-Witness instead he admits Quote:

This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, he may have used Mark as a map.

So as you can see Matt Slick admits that Mathew perhaps copied or used Mark’s information who also was not an Eye-Witness then added his narrations additional to the Text.

4: John( Although Matt Slick claims John was an Eye-Witness to the Events. Matt tells us

Quote: The Gospel of John was written by Eye-Witnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.

What he’s saying is him not sure if it was written Directly by an Eye-Witness or perhaps if someone else Wrote hearing from an Eye-Witness.

So as you can see Matt Slick admits ALL 4 Gospels written were not direct Eye-Witnesses penning down the Events. Rather they were Anonymous people Quoting from Hearsay from other Eye-Witnesses. So the next time a Christian boastfully tells you we have 4 Direct Eye-Witness Testimony by the 4 Gospels written by the Disciples of Jesus. They are simply misleading you.


Extra info:

When we read Luke 1:1 says he ( Apostle Luke) investigated from the first Eye-Witness accounts. This could mean he copied from the first eyewitnesses. And then took that knowledge and then wrote out his own accord. So they would have borrowed a Narrative.

Christian wrote to me and said Quote;
“So Luke used other sources available. Is that supposed to be a problem for some reason? That’s what any historian at the time would do. End Quote.

Muslim Response;

Luke said he investigated. This implies he didn’t trust their holy spirit. Why would someone have the Holy Spirit need to borrow from others? He should have been able to know the whole event without having to look anywhere else. Since they were all individual eyewitness accounts. This proves they were not all different eyewitness accounts rather a non-Eye Witness copied the Eye Witness of somebody else.

Yes if he was to only remain a historian we have no objection. But soon as Christians claim he was inspired and an Eye-Witness then this raises the questions of errors.

Another Christian Apologist Mike Lincon also states the same that Mathew borrowed and edited his Gospel watch:

Now the Rebuttal Question will go through how a Christian responded when he denied our article so we gave him an example of why he can not deny it. We showed him if the Writers of the Gospel were indeed based on “Eye Witness accounts” they ALL would have written the same message on the thorn crown on Jesus’ head upon the Crucifixion:

Mustafa Sahin wrote:

Tell us what was written on Jesus’ head if there were Eye Witness accounts. Surely if they are guided by God it will all read the same thing. Let’s put you through an acid test.

Christian named Nick Peters wrote:

Why should they all say the same thing? The message was written in different languages and was translated into different languages and paraphrasing was perfectly acceptable.

Sorry. I’m not a fundamentalist like you are.

Mustafa Sahin wrote:

There was only 1 language written on Jesus’ head, not 4 different languages.


(Matthew 27:37) – “And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.”
(Mark 15:26) – “And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.”
(Luke 23:38) – “And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.”
(John 19:19-20) – “And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

So if there are 4 different interpretations from an original? What was the original writing in Arabic? Greek? Hebrew? over Jesus’ head. It can not be ALL. Yet the Bible witness can not decide.

Of course, it will not be the same if it didn’t have first-hand multiple eyewitnesses.

Christian wrote:
Sorry Mustafa, but that’s a modern concept. Ancient minds weren’t interested in word-for-word accuracy but in getting the gist of the idea correct. Try reading scholarship.

Mustafa Sahin Wrote:

Thats a cop-out, exactly any excuse. The ancient text wasn’t interested in divine guidance as well I see?

Christian wrote;

Sorry dude, but no one holds to divine dictation theory. And no, that’s not a cop-out. Read Small’s “Wax Tablets of the Mind” for instance.

Mustafa sahin wrote:

Don’t hold to Divine dictation. Why say it’s divine guidance and thus divine inspiration?

As you can see for yourself the Christian when shown an example of why the Gospel accounts are far from being an eye-witness account rather I believe it follows hearsay. He resorted to blocking it out by saying, the scribes were not dictated to write.

Well if it’s not dictated and guided by the Holy Spirit then I agree the Scribe gave an un-guided opinion of hearsay. That can be the only explanation why ALL Scribes could not pen down ” Word for Word” what exactly was written down over the head of Jesus nailed on the Cross.

We can go a step further,

The Fact of the matter is. The 4 Gospels appear to be 4 Witnesses. But the reality is they ALL copy from Mark only improving the narrative. They all go back to Pauls’s narrative. Because Paul said if a Gospel is preached other than the one I preach then let him be cursed. So not only was the later Gospels copying from Mark they also had to stay in line with Pauls’s witness. Yet Paul never met the living Jesus during his ministry nor witnessed the Crucifixion. Additionally, the 4 Gospels are Anonymous. The term Mark, Mathew, Luke and John do not exist as Subtitle headings in the Earliest Manuscripts. These came later into the Manuscripts to show they were 4 different witnesses the reality is those subtitles were never there. Additionally when you open the Gospel of Luke 1:1″ He tells us that he is writing an account from the first eye witness. And he felt that he should write an account also. But notice Luke doesn’t claim he is writing as a witness to the events himself. Rather he narrates what he “Heard” not what He Saw himself. In the Crucifixion story for example we are told all the disciples fled and only in a distance there was 1 disciple who witnessed the Crucifixion and not 4 Disciples. But only 1 disciple. And the interesting thing is the name of that witness disciple is not even mentioned. Rather he is called ” The Desciple who he loved”.

Christian Wrote:
The authors probably wanted to eliminate interest in who wrote the story and to focus the reader on the subject. More importantly, the claim of an anonymous history was higher than that of a named work. In the ancient world an anonymous book, rather like an encyclopedia article today, implicitly claimed complete knowledge and reliability. It would have reduced the impact of the Gospel of Matthew had the author written ‘this is my version instead of ‘this is what Jesus said and did.’  – The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders page 66.

They also don’t all copy from Mark. John doesn’t and why shouldn’t Matthew and Luke use Mark as another source as well?

Mustafa Sahin wrote:

I didn’t say John copies only from Mark but also Paul. If John didn’t copy from Paul then John would be preaching a different Gospel. And Paul said if anyone preaches a different Gospel than the one I preach let him be cursed. ( Galatians 1:8) So if John is not narrating the same Story as Paul then John is cursed.

Im baffled also how by you think anonymous writing credits ability. If it’s anonymous then satin can be the Author and not the eyewitness

Christian wrote:
You’re confusing the gospel with the Gospels. The two are not the same. The Gospels as understood are Greco-Roman bio centred around the life of Jesus. The Gospel is the content and the message of the story. That does not mean the story has to be exact verbatim identical. The Gospel is the good news about the life of Jesus. The Gospels are accounts of the life of Jesus.

As for anonymous, this is not my opinion alone but that of E.P. Sanders, a leading Biblical scholar in the field. If we want to know who wrote the Gospels, we can look at the earliest traditions that we have and make cases based on internal and external evidence.

Mustafa Sahin wrote:
Well if they are Anonymous. Then Christians can not claim they have 4 Witnesses looking at the earliest manuscripts. For all, I care it could be 1 Witness. Copying and slightly improving or adding their vents from hearsay and not what they witnessed themselves as luke 1:1 tells us.

Because our Christian guest thought that, the story doesn’t have to be the same?

This is a wrong analysis. I agree that one story can add more information than the other which just can mean one gives more detail than the other, however,

Even in today’s Criminal Justice system if Mulitple eyewitness testimony is given as evidence. The Judge can dismiss the evidence based on the testimony if it’s not the same between the witness box, meaning the Storyline is not adding up) or if it’s contradictory. Then someone is telling a lie claiming to be an Eye- witness to the Crime scene.

Here is an example of that;

If Luke was correct mark must have been wrong?

Below we have two accounts from the same event, however, they differ in the order of chronology :


Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law and later John the Baptist was arrested (Mark 1:29-31) (Mark 6:17-18)

While in Luke we find the opposite ??

John the Baptist was arrested and later Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Luke 3:19-20) (Luke 4:38-39)


How do u rectify this problem, it’s the same event but in the opposite order? now here’s where the problem GROWS EVEN BIGGER, Luke tells us he has an accurate account of what happened during the Ministry of Jesus?

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:1-3)


Note from the above passage from Luke how he states MANY HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO DRAW UP AN ACCOUNT? Who are all those Many, when Mark and Matthew are his only predecessors according to the Cannon, Also notice how he HAS AN ORDERLY ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS? ThMarks’s’sMarks’s order was WRONG and thats according to Luke if not how do u rectify this Discrepancy?

Who are all those Many, when Mark was the only one who wrote before him? Unless there were more if so where are their writings?

This clearly shows that Luke didn’t agree exactly with Mark’s narrative. Thats why Luke had to investigate. This also begs the question why did Luke have to investigate the information since he had divine inspiration? If one claims to write by inspiration there is no need to investigate. This proves the Gospel writers didn’t believe they were individually inspired.

Also, im wondering if our Christian opponents would like to use the filtering arguement here. Luke is wrong and Mark is right because the earlier the more authentic?

This is clear evidence that they were not Eyewitnesses and that accounts nor what they wrote was divinely inspired. We can see why Matt Slick was at least honest in confessing this, I hope other Christians follow in Matt Slick’s footsteps.

Please also visit :

Rebuttal Section:

Christian wrote:


What are you talking about. Bart Ehrman dismmises the notion the Early church fathers, knew which desciples of Jesus wrote the four gospels.

Read for example

Tertullian, of course, would have no way of knowing who actually wrote these two Gospels.  He is simply repeating the tradition he learned when he converted, that Mark represents Peter’s views and Luke Paul’s.  By his time this was the accepted view, and it continued to be the accepted view until the modern era.


Sure you can say, that the gospel writers may have known the early disciples, but of course this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. They have  perhaps heard from them without meeting them. For example,

If you read the opening chapter of luke.

It writes:

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first(B) were eyewitnesses(C) and servants of the word.(D) 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account(E) for you, most excellent(F) Theophilus,(G) 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.(H)

If you notice the person who wrote lukes gospel, was not a eye witness himself. Meaning he was not a disciple of Jesus himself.

Notice it says, early disciples wrote an account, and those accounts were handed down. But then this begs the question, why did luke write his own account to add to the account? This shows all the luke repeats some of the early things handed down to him by early disciples, his not satisfied so he continues to write and add to the account.

So what we have is, perhaps the gospel of luke which has partially the accounts of early disciples who were Jesus descipled. Mixed with the accounts of people like Luke who weren’t exactly an eye witness or a disciple of Jesus.

Related link:

Our Authentic Islamic Hadiths are more reliable then the Gospel.


Does the Quran approve the Bible? Vs Does Christians approve the Bible?

Last Update: 2nd June 2022

■ New updates, Responding to Answering-Islam blog

■ New updates, Responding to Allah protecting & guarding the Bible.

■ New updates, Proof Bible scribes forgot to add verses to the Bible!

By: Mustafa Sahin

Christian missionaries use several Quranic verses like (Sureh 2:87, 5:46, 3:3, 10:64) and other similar verses, to prove that the Bible can not be corrupted. They misinterpret the verses of the Quran and Hadith to show that the Gospel is truth and light and guide for humanity whereas Muslims are even requested to Judge by it. They even claim the Islamic sources speak about Biblical Preservation.

These misinterpreted verses have been refuted here;


But here are some useful points to counter their arguments and expose how this arguement can be used against them.

Point 1: Muslims don’t claim  Everything in the bible is distorted.

No Muslim who understands the Quran or Hadith claim everything within of the Previous Scripture (i.e) verses of both the Old Testament or the New Testament is altered or corrupted. The Muslim & Quranic/Hadith position is like that of the Christians concerning the Bible. Christians themselves believe there are “Un-Authentic” narrations or verses among the many ” Truthful Statements” in the Bible. So for example, Christian Apologists like Dr James White and David Wood and many other more prominent Biblical Scholars agree that there are ” Un-Authentic” additions to the Bible. So Both Muslims and Christians attest that the Bible has been contaminated. All through the Quran speaks that there is truth and light and guidance for Humanity concerning the Bible. The Islamic Sources also testify there are contaminations within the Text, please visit the link below to see examples:

Proof: http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/evidence_that_islam_teaches_that_there_was_textual_corruption_of_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures

Point 2: ” If the Bible is error-free, then why do Christians dismiss certain verses”?

If Christians want to assert that the Quran does not assert the Bible is contaminated with false information. Then why do Christian Apologists and Scholars themselves attest that there are ” Un-Authentic verses attached to today’s New Testament? So it is clear that Christians are not even consistent with their arguments. Why then do Christians not accept everything as Canonical inspired and Authentic?

For instance, have a look at this:

Christian Apologist “David Wood,” says; Every Scholar in the World agrees with the last part of Mark’s Gospel as being” Un -Authentic” Proof: Forward to (3 Minute 42 seconds).
Watch: https://youtu.be/Uko0Saf-orQgg

It is now evidently clear that both Muslims and Christians agree ” Not Everything in the Bible is authentically Reliable. So if Christians want to accuse Muslims of misinterpreting the Quran for speaking corruption of the Bible, why then do Christians attest to fabrications and alterations in the Bible? Now even if a Christian suggests, that they know exactly where the changes are, therefore they can remove corruption, and affirm the Bible as a preserved book, they still have issues because Christians don’t just have interpolated issues, but also canonical differences between Christian denominations that are not agreed upon.

This will be discussed further…..down below.

Point 3:   “The Quran itself is a guide”

More cherry picking inconsistency by Christians. They go to the Quran to tell us that the Quran says the Bible is a Guide. And Muslims & Christians are commanded to Judge by the Bible.
However, they leave out the part where Allah also says: The Quran itself is a guide, let’s read:

“The month of Ramadhan [is that] in which was revealed the Qur’an,  A GUIDANCE for the people and clear proofs of guidance and criterion. So whoever sights [the new moon of] the month, let him fast it; and whoever is ill or on a journey – then an equal number of other days. Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship and [wants] for you to complete the period and to glorify Allah for that [to] which He has guided you, and perhaps you will be grateful”. (Quran 2:185)

Notice the Quran all although mentions parts of the bible i.e ( Un-Distrorederd parts) are a guide or a light in other verses of the Quran, it however does the same with the Quran in the verse above. So why do Christians cherry-pick by appealing to the Quran, to prove the authenticity of the Bible but leave out the verse in the Quran, that says the Quran is also a guide?

Let’s read; Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.658 Narrated by Abu Huraira Allah’s Messenger (saws) said “How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e) Jesus (a.s.) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur’an and not by the law of Gospel. So Christians cherry-picking is not a good idea. When Both the Quran and Hadith attest that the Quran is the superior guidance as Jesus will judge by the Quran and not the Bible. So why do Christians accept the part that the Bible has guidance but reject the very same verses in the Quran that say the Quran is guidance also. In fact Jesus will judge by the Quran and not the Gospel.

Now a Christian may claim, why does Jesus in the Islamic version not Judge by the Bible but only the Quran? isn’t that a double standard since Allah claims both the Quran and the Injeel bible is light and guidance?

My response would be. No not really, I mean think of it this way, Christians claim both the Old Testament and the New Testament are from Yahweh God right? Despite this Christians of today claim, they are only to be judged by the New Testament, though Christians still believe the Old Testament is inspired. So I can’t see why they would then have issues of Jesus of the Islamic version using the Quran instead of the Bible.


Point 4:  “Judge by the Bible”?

Since Christians appeal to the Quranic verses to prove that, we are commanded to Judge by the Bible. How come Christians do not also full fill this condition and judge by the Previous Scripture. For example, does it then include the Bible Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter?
Do these ancient texts claim Jesus was not Crucified rather substituted on the Cross similar to what the Quran claims. Read here for yourself:


Notice Christians reject Certain Christian writings and deem them Apocryphal. Different Christian religious sects have different amounts of books among themselves. So why then do they not judge by everything and instead dictate to Muslims what “is” inspired and what is “not” inspired?

So notice the Christians are guilty of what they accuse Muslims of. If the Christians can selectively “choose” what is part of revelation. Then why are the Muslims condemned for doing the same by filtering out what they believe is the only authentic verses within the Bible? So according to the Christians,  Muslims are supposed to go look at the Bible for Judgement but not just any Bible. It has to be a Bible version that only specifically agrees to the Christians narrative. Isn’t that convenient? 

So notice the Double standards. They accuse Muslims that they should judge by the previous scripture and accept it, as the Quran commands. Yet Christians themselves do not judge by everything and reject certain bibles and certain passages of the Bible and deem it ” Un-Authentic”, and force Muslims to concede to their particular version of the Bible what they think is Authentic.

So Christians are guilty of the same thing by telling Muslims to listen to their bogus interpretation of the Quran and to judge by everything of the previous book sent down, yet they don’t listen to the very Quran they interprete by rejecting Bibles of the past by deeming them Apocryphal or Non-Authentic and trying to pick out the Correct Bible for both Muslims and  Christians to judge by. Sorry but that is just hypocritical and convenient and no different from accusing the Muslim of claiming not all Bibles or verses of the Bible are accurate. When a Muslim tries to also figure out what verses are accurate he gets ridiculed, Yet the Christian can pick out what he pleases as Authentic. Hypocritical.


Some of those Bibles those Christians reject may include;
-Shepherd of Hermes
-Epistle of Barnabas
-Apocryphal Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter

In addition, Christian Scholars tell us more than (30 verses) were deleted from the NIV version bible which is still found in the KJV Bible. They are either completely removed from the page, or moved to the footnote, just as a historical reference, but their inspiration is disputed since they don’t exist in the earliest ancient manuscripts.

It is then clear that when Muslims or Christians are told to judge by the Gospel it is only to Judge by the authentic parts and not ALL of it. And Since the Quran does not define the exact truthful amount of books in the previous Scripture such as the 27 Books in the New Testament. Then Christians have no right in forcing  Muslims to what their standards of authentic books are For all, I care the many Gnostic could be Authentic as well. And so could the verses Christians dismiss from their bible, and since the Quran does not outline what exactly is the ” Authentic ” Canon” or the Authentic verses, then this is an open field day for all parties for both Muslims and Christians. The Christians claim to have a position of working out “Authenticity”, they try and rely on the Most Earliest ancient manuscripts. We have dealt with this arguement here, that when Christians claim they can fix the errors in the Bible by referring to the earliest material, See:


Also, referring to the Earliest is not always a good idea. Because it can still be early and Un-Authentic read ( Galatians 1:4-8) Where Paul admitted there were false books and scribes as early as (50 A.D) and Paul insisted his Disciples turn away from those scribes. A Christian can try and be clever here by saying Paul didn’t consider those other books to be other bibles, therefore there weren’t any other bibles back then. However this is incorrect, when Paul dismissed it, it didn’t mean those other early scribes did not exist or that their documents did not exist as their version of the Bible, if they didn’t exist then why would Paul say turn away from them? They did exist, and Paul did not want them considered to be a bible because Paul disagreed with them, thus this does not mean other bibles did not exist, they were just false ones according to Paul, thus proving early documents even in Paul’s time can be wrong, so what makes you think if something is written early means it’s correct? It isn’t according to the biblical premise!

The Muslims on the other hand take the approach with what agrees to the Quran or not in contradiction to it, as the safer option. Now a Christian may look at this and frankly assert that is absurd. But then again these are the same Christians who want Muslims to appeal to the Quran for validation of the Bible, interesting Hey?

Point 5: “The Double standards”

Christians tell Muslims that the Quran is corrupted. And that Allah is a different God than the Bible they even say; an evil spirit demon gave the Quran to Prophet Muhammed in a cave. Yet the same Christians say Allah in the Quran, says He gave Christians the Bible as Truth and Guidance and a Light”. Now how can Satan who is Allah give Christians a Bible which is light and guidance? Makes no sense now does it?

If Christians say, no we don’t just say ALL of the Quran was from a Demon, But it also contains plagiarization copying the Bible. Well, this brings up more difficulties for the Christian. Why? Because if Christians appeal to the Quran, where Allah tells Christians he sent them the Bible? Then how can this be plagerization? Since both the Quran and bible (Truth parts of the Bible) come from the same source that being ( The preserved Tablet in heaven) which is from Allah! Therefore plagiarization arguement does not stand, so the Christians have to now submit to the original arguement that all of the Quran is from Satan, and if this is the case, then again how can Satan say in the Quran, the gospel is “truth and a light”? Why would Satan confess this? Satan will only say the Bible is truth and light, if it’s a False bible, therefore when Christians appeal to the Quran and say it speaks that the Bible is truth and light, yet claim the Quran is from Satan is an illogical fallacy, thus the best explanation is, that “yes” the Quran is not from Satan, nor copied, and both the Quran and only the truthful parts of the Bible that have survived distortions are the Truth and the light!

Point 6: “The Inconsistency” Muslims to refer to the Quran, that approves the Bible?

Inconsistency to call the Quran not a Reliable Historical Source? The Christians say that the Quran is not a credible historical source of information.


Now that begs the Question? If the Quran is not a reliable source of information why then do Christians refer to the Quran and tell Muslims to also refer to the Quran that “approves” Qur’anic “verification of the Bible? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say the Quran is a false book yet at the same time claim it’s a reliable source of information for saying the Bible is light and guidance. If the Quran is not a reliable source since it was transmitted many years later after the Bible, why then do Christians tell Muslims even your Quran approves it? If the Quran is not reliable then that would mean, the verse in the Quran regarding the Bible being truth and right side is also unreliable. See we Muslims do not claim everything written in the Bible is Falsewhwhere ChriChristians the Quran! they go to the extent of saying the Quran is from a Demon yet use the work of a Demon to approve the Bible. Interesting!

So is the Quran a Historically true and accurate testification of the truth of the Bible? If the answer is “No” then you are asserting the Quran lied about the Bible being a guide and light. If your answer is ” Yes” then you ought to agree the rest of the Quran is true as well. You can’t simply “cherry pick”

A Christian may claim why do Muslims “cherry-pick” from the bible, well that’s simple. That’s because “We can” since we don’t claim it’s all distorted, however, Christians claim the Quran is demon inspired!

Point 7: ” Did Allah send the Gospel which is the whole New Testament and much of the Bible forgotten according to the Quran”? Also, there are Christians who appeal and also misquote Hadith or Qur’anic verses about “The Protection” of the Injeel or the Bible”?

The Christians show more inconsistency when they reference the Quran out of context. They will bring verses like the Quran says we will preserve the Injeel. However, this is talking about the “preserved tablet in heaven” (al-law al-Mahfouz) https://islamqa.info/en/answers/7002/what-is-al-lawh-al-mahfooz

So the original copy of the Injeel in heaven “Yes that will remain unchanged” however the copy sent to earth, Allah may have preserved the Bible only during the “ministry of Jesus” Christ while on earth.

“A Christian may argue and say, they don’t believe a Bible or (complete Injeel) existed during Jesus ministry”

However,r this can be easily disproven because as you know today’s New Testament are only copies of the words Jesus spoke or his companions. And that originals of the (Injeel) ought to have existed in the 1st Century which we dont have today just fragmented copies, so once Jesus left the earth the Injeel or Gospel full-filled its duty making way for the Quran so Allah may have then “lifted the protection” which may explain why the copies we have are not fully reliable as we can not compare them to originals since we don’t have them. Christian Apologists till today try extremely hard to try and date their manuscripts to the 1st century, and they continue to fail in disappointment, as almost all of their carbon dating comes in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries after Jesus. Now isn’t that interesting! The same Christians who try to dismiss the evidence of an earlier original, are usually the ones trying to assume an earlier date for the manuscripts they have to 1st century now is that interesting. And of course therefore biblical scholars who even entertain the idea of the Gospel Q which the claim ought to have existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

We also have Wallace a Christian Scholar of N.T who argues there was an “original bible” that has “disappeared” see:

The fact is there is not a single verse in the Quran or Hadeeth that says the Gospel will be protected or guarded “forever” in the earthly abode. Rather it was only a temporary guard during Jesus’ ministry since it didn’t matter for it to remain preserved as the Quran was coming way as the last final revelation. 

Another great explanation can be found here:


Islamic sources and Tafsir, explain that Allah may have only “preserved” the important parts of the message, such as the “coming of the Prophet Muhammed”, and the essential message like Tawheed in the Bible, like the “ones” of God, and things like the 10 commandments.

“Now a Christian may say, that’s just absurd!”

However, I find this interesting because, whenever Muslims point out Interpolation in the Bible, or corruption in the Bible, referring to Biblical variances, Christians often say, well it “doesn’t matter” if the Bible has “Textural variances” and they point out, the “errors” in the Bible dont matter, and what matters is that the central message of Christianity is still preserved and the textural variances of the Bible dont effect that central message. Well then if Christians can make that justification for the preservation of the Bible, Muslims can equally say; there is no contradiction when Allah says, He will guard the Bible, and this doesn’t mean ALL of the Bible, and rather that He will “only” preserve and guard the central message.

Now here is another Hilarious point, Christians misinterpret the Quran and keep insisting that Allah promised to guard and protect the earthly Bible,  yet these Christians “believe” Allah is a Devil, and the Quran, was revealed to Muhammed in a Cave by a Demon. So this would mean, the Devil inspired the Quran. So my question is, if Allah is a Devil, and if the Quran was inspired by a Demon, did now a Demon who authored the Quran promise that He will guard and protect the Bible? Interesting Hey?

As Christian Apologist; “Dr James white” says; Inconsistency is the “sign” of a failed arguement”.

Furthermore: “Christians say, well why did Allah fail to preserve the earthly Injeel bible”?

Im was sure if Christians lost everything in the O.T Bible they wouldn’t care much and say well we have the New Testament which is the latest information for us to follow, hence I would argue the same for the Quran, as the last and most latest source to follow and it wouldn’t matter if the New Testament hasn’t been preserved. After all, even though Christians have the O.T they don’t use it much and say only the New Testament applies to them.

This gets more clear when Allah says in the” (Quran 5:13-14)….. “much of the Injeel” (Gospel) has been “forgotten”.

So notice how can Christians Quote the Quran believing the Quran speaks of the preservation of the Original Bible yet leave out the verse where the Quran says much of it has been “forgotten”.

The verse is clear read: 5:13

Sahih International: So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.

As you can read, the jews distorted the book, and so Allah cursed them. And then he made the jews forget a portion. Meaning He took (parts) of the original book away from them as a punishment by causing them to forget it.

Continue reading:
Verse 5:14

Sahih International: And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant, but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.

Notice again, Allah did this because they brock his covenant.
Notice it says they have forgotten a portion of what was reminded that being verses to do with the covenant.
It’s clear, that the Torah and the Injeel were not preserved with them in their entirety for they have become cursed for playing with God’s revelation for distorting it.
Ask yourself, why was a portion of the revelation caused to be forgotten? If God was trying to preserve it through their scribes?
And also, why is Allah cursing them till the day of judgment despite as these missionaries claim Allah preserved the previous scripture with them. Are we to suggest Allah preserved a book with the Jews and Christians whom He cursed? So on one hand Allah has cursed them till the day of resurrection while at the same time blessed them with a preserved book? Doesn’t make sense now does it?

Furthermore; the earliest copies of the New Testament from the Original manuscripts come from E to 240 CE. Thats almost 100 years after Jesus. Therefore a lot can be forgotten from what was contained in these Original Bible we don’t have today just copies written later on. The Copies we have of today’s new Testament word for word, chapters and verses can not be compared to an original. Because we dont have originals or a complete original of the New Testament within the 1st century. So every that that ng ame in the (Second centuries are only believed thats what the originals may have said. There is very little tangible evidence of this only maybe a few letters of certain passages of the N.T and not everything within the 1st century.  And even the dating of these letters are disputed, and there is no real evidence there dating are 1st-century documents,  nevertheless, the point is, Christians can not even cross-reference their second-century Manuscripts with 1st-century ones, because 1st-century documents are not available and as Christian Scholar Pro. Bart Ehrman says, how do we know if the 2nd2nd-centuries are correct if we don’t have the originals to verify that the copies are correct or in line with the originals, since the earlier we go the more mistakes we find when we try and reconstruct an original:

See here: Re-construct with confidence 98% of the Original? Watch Ehrman Vs Wallace: from (Minute: 1.30.21) Go then again to (minute 1.56.07) onwards, and Bart Ehrman, shows can trust something 97%? Accurate?

Also here is a video, demonstrating the problem of not having an “original Bible available” and how Christians are left confused on the text of the Bible on what it said, due to the variances. Christians believe that they can correct the Biblical Errors by referring to the Oldest Manuscripts of the New Testament, however, this falls flat on its face take a read here:


To further prove that verses have been “forgotten”, as the Quran suggests. The New Testament says it is “WRITTEN” in the Law of Moses Jesus will; “die and rise on the third day”. (Luke 24:44-46)

I request Christians to bring us these explicit words: “Rise after the third day” from the Law of Moses, and not half the Prophecy like; “He will die and rise”. Christians can never show this explicit part; ” rise after Three Days” in the Law of Moses. So notice this is evident Proof they have forgotten to write this explicit statement. All they have is; He will die and rise, but no mention of “Rise after the third day”. It’s nowhere to be found in the Old Testament, yet Luke claims that exact statement word for word, was written there. However when we look in the Old Testament, or the law of Moses, books the statement is not there, this goes to show, either Luke made a false error in assuming it was written like the way, He said it was. Or that, it was there or was supposed to be in there, but the scribes “forgot to put them in there”. Again for me, it’s not important because as a Muslim I don’t believe in the Christian narrative about Jesus being crucified, however, I’m just demonstrating that scribes have forgotten to put a lot of things in the Bible, and this is just an example of that.

See my video here, where I continue to respond to a Christian; “He asks where is this Injeel”?

Furthermore, Christians can not prove the correct “preserved Canon” of the Bible today. They don’t have a unanimous agreement on it between the Protestants, Catholics and Greek Orthodox. If they had an Original they would have all agreed.

Here is a link showing different amount of Books accepted in one denomination compared to another Christian denomination:

So when the Christians say the Quran says it preserved. They need to be able to show which Bible Canon. Simply Quoting the Quran and not being able to prove which Canon is Preserved defies the whole purpose of appealing to the Quran. And even if you claim you have a Preserved Canon Bible its still subjective as other Christians’ Denominations differ from what you believe is Preserved Canon agreed on Books. An example from unveiling Christianity web site:

73 Catholic Canon Books

63 Protestant Canon Book

Both Can not be Right.

It is thus clear, Allah was correct in saying, much of the Injeel (Bible) has been caused to be forgotten (Quran 5:13-14) the Christians though they have parts of the Bible that have truth and light and some guidance for mankind, a lot of it has been slipped away from them.  And of course, we have explained already why Allah would allow such a thing so important like that to slip away, well perhaps because of their sins, so Allah partially took guidance away from them, and secondly because the Quran was going to make way, but if this is still difficult for a Christian to understand why God would do such things, a Christian would then need to then explain, why would Yahweh also allow the Quran to come which according to Christians allowed the misguidance of so many Muslims away from the Bible and allowed confusion like this? Even if Christians say that wasn’t Yahway who did that, rather it was satan, that still begs the question of why would Yahway allow Satan to cause such confusion like that. But then again the same Christians tell Muslims to refer to the Quran for the truth of the Bible. Interesting! See we can play the same Questioning with Christian Yahway God of the universe.

Point 8: ” Why do Christians filter and dismiss verses, we can play the same”

If Allah in the Quran tells us Muslims to follow ALL the accounts of the Bible why do Christian Scholars filter out what they believed was the Authentic parts of the Bible? And remove what they believe is ” Un-Authentic? If Christians can filter the bible what makes you think Muslims can not? Thus proving that not everything is “Authentic”.

So Yes! Muslims in being consistent can refer to Prophet Muhammed (Pbuh) being in the Bible, for example, this is not being hypocritical at all since Muslims do not say “everything” is corrupt. But you Christians say ” ALL the Quran was given to Muhammed by Satan in a Cave that being ALL the Quran is corrupt” yet you Christians say this Satan’s book ( Quran) approves the Bible. So a Corrupt evil Book like the Quran is used to affirm the Truth of the Bible? How so?

These Hypocritical Christians, tell Muslims that Allah says ” Everything in the Bible is Authentic! yet the Christians tell us their Bible has verses in there that are not Authentic! and removed a lot of verses that they felt was not part of what they believe was not closer to the original Bible. Amazing isn’t it?

We can play the same game on the Christians. The Christians have to accept the Gnostic Bibles and Unite on a Biblical Canon! because the Quran said to confirm them ALL. If they don’t accept this. Then how can they expect us to follow their version of the Bible? If they reject bibles and verses within the New Testament and disagree on the Canon of the Bible, then that validates Muslims to do the same! Plain and simple!

I guess no Christian would accept that premise, so why do they expect Muslims or the Quran to accept their version of the Canon that is according to their denomination? Interesting that the protestants will then tell Muslims to stay away from the Catholic Canon which differs from the Protestant Canon, but hey Allah told Muslims what the Christians have today is preserved and authentic, yet Christians can’t tell us which one! And it all depends on their subjective opinion depending on which Christian denomination they belong to.

Point 9:  “Counter Rebuttal to some of my points”

Rebuttal Section can be found on YouTube in Audio:

1st counter Rebuttal: (Responding to Sam Shamoun of Answering-Islam)

2nd Counter Rebuttal (to a random online Christian Apologist)

3rd Counter Rebuttal: (Responding to Sam Shamoun of Answering-Islam)

slam Blog).

4th Counter Rebuttal: (Responding to Sam Shamoun of Answering-Islam) his article can be found here:


My Response:

As I expected Sam Shamoun didn’t deal with my arguments. All He did was, switch the subject to “The Preservation of the Quran”. The Preservation of the Quran is not the subject here. The Subject is, does the Quran confirm the Bible, and we counter the arguement Christians make that the Quran claims the Bible to be true in its complete form. That is why I have pointed out the flaws of the Bible. Because Christians try and use the Quran to validate the truth of the Bible. So Sam Shamoun trying to prove that the Quran preservation is false doesn’t validate your bible on the flip side it makes it much worse for Him, for bringing up Qur’anic Corruption claims because in doing so, invalidating the Quran. Funny that his attempting to invalidate the Quran, yet trying to use the same Corrupt Quran to approve that the Bible is true. See how silly He just made himself look? If the Quran is Corrupt all of it as you Christians claim, then why would Christians use the Quran as a historical valid document to prove the Bible is correct? Christians say, a Demon authored the Quran, so I ask how can a Demon who wrote the Quran, tell Christians the Gospel is truth and light? So this desperate Apologist, instead of dealing with all my arguments instead tries to throw mud on Islam. News flash for you my arguments are still valid, and Sam has failed to deal with them.

His old arguments have been refuted at the following link:



Point 10: ” Clear evidence of Bible corruption”

Now see for yourself Evidence of the Corruption tampering within the Bible Christian Apologist like Jay Smith admits  and say’s “We Know the Bible has been changed, and We know where those changes have been made:

See video:

See also how we have demonstrated that not only has there been “corruption” of how many books are to be part of the original Biblical  Canon, but even within the New Testament Text, there are clear signs of distorting words, and interpretations, interpolations, and textural variances, in adding words to the latter gospels and shifting around words, to force a theology about Jesus, Salvation, Divinity, crucifixion and so on:

See: https://mustafasahin33.wordpress.com/2016/08/20/proof-how-christology-evolved-in-the-four-gospels/






Point 11: “Today’s New Testament is the same Bible in Muhammad’s time?

Sam Shamoun asks, is today’s New Testament the same as the one in Muhammed’s time?

Christians hold today’s bible and say this is the Bible that is the same one in Muhammed’s time. Yet the same Bible they hold they admit has fraudulent verses in there like the last 10 verses of Mark Gospel.

Did those 10 verses of Mark’s Gospel exist in the Bible in Muhammed’s time? The answer is also “Yes”. Since those verses pre-exist Prophet  Muhammed according to the dating of those late Manuscripts.

Therefore even in Muhammad’s time, Yes there was a bible. But was it fraudulent free? The answer ought to be No. Unless Christians assume the ending of Mark was not there in Muhammed’s time. However, they can’t do that since again those manuscripts predated Prophet Muhammed (Pbuh) Therefore the Christians fail to prove a point to show, what existed in Prophet Muhammad’s time was fraudulent free. When the historical records show otherwise.


I like to ask Sam Shamoun since the Codex Sinaiticus is a 4th century Bible that predates Muhammed. It contains 29 books of the New Testament instead of 27 books. So this would mean in Muhammed’s time there was Codex Sinaiticus that had 29 books. So why doesn’t today’s Protestant canon of 27 books of the New Testament agree with the Bible in Muhammed’s time?  According to Sam Shamoun God only inspired 27 books of N.T? So in Muhammed’s time, they didn’t have the preserved right canon. It had forgery even back then of 2 extra books. Ouch!

So No Sam Shamoun even “in” or “before” Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) time, you had verient Bibles that had a different amount of Books in a canon, and there was not one canon identically the same that was in agreement to today’s accepted Canon.

Point 12:   ” Allah’s Words Do Not Change”

Christians missionaries like Sam Shamoun will say; Surah 6:115 and 18:27 state that no one can change the words of Allah. The Torah and Gospel were the words of Allah. Since they couldn’t have changed that means that Islam testifies to the incorruptibility of the text of the Bible.

Bassam Zawadi already deals with that here: https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_allah_s_words_do_not_change

And So has Dr Shabir Aly also refuted this:

In these articles, we see that Allah does not say the Torah and Injeel specifying them can’t change. Rather He said Word. Word doesn’t have to imply the previous revelation rather it could mean, His decree as outlined in the sources provided in the links above, also it could be talking about the preserved tablet in heaven that cannot change, which both the copies of the original Injeel and Torah come from. So what is on the earth could change such as previous scripture but not the preserved tablet in heaven the master original, of the Quran the last book which Allah said, it will be guarded against corruption.

I would also like to ask Christian Apologists, Like Sam Shamoun if they believe that Allah’s word can not change in the way they understand it when referring to the Bible, then why does Sam Shamoun in the second part of his response found here: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/01/the-quranic-affirmation-of-the-holy-bible-revisited-pt-2/

Demand that Allah’s word “can change” in Qur’anic manuscripts? It seems Sam Shamoun is not even being consistent with his arguement. “FacePalm” moment.

Point 13: ” Christians like Sam Shamoun use Surah 61.14 “To Prove that Allah says the Christians will be Victoria’s which includes the Protection of their Bible.

However, being Victoria’s has nothing to do with the preservation of their Bible, see:


Please also visit this video by Ijaz Ahmed who Refutes more Hadith brought up by Christians about Quran confirmation of the Bible:

Some funny back and forth, Christian wrote:

My Response;

If you are in doubt?

Ask the People of the Scripture if you are “found in it”?



Jesus/Christians & Jews kill in God’s Name

Last update: 4th, Jan. 2022

20200507_150345By: Mustafa Sahin

When Christians and Jews accuse Muslims, of spreading bloodshed in Allah’s Name?

Christians kill in God name: 

See how the Bush administration, after sending troops into Iraq also sent Christian missionary to spread to the Iraqies the Bible.

1 – Christians in Africa kill in Jesus name read:


2 – More Terror  in Jesus name.

Terrorism in the name of Jesus? Everybody ignore

3 – Christian on Facebook wants to kill Muslims in the name of the Christian God.


4 – Christian fights in Jesus name.


5 – In Jesus name millitery guns

6 – Klu Klux Klan want to be known as a; “Christians Organization”


7 – Jesus loves enemies love Enemy then kills them.


8 – Killing “for Jesus” a American sniper

“American Sniper”: Killing Ragheads for Jesus

9 – Christians wants Homosexuality dead


10 – Christian praises God and in his name will use the Atomic bomb

11 – U.S Christian veteran  wishes to behead Muslims living in America.

12 – Brendon Tarrant the New Zealand Terrorist that killed 50 Muslim Worshippers “Blesses His Followers in “God’s Name” of Western Religion that being of Christianity. Words are Found in his manifesto.

Right Wing Glorifying & Justifying the latest Terror attacks against a Mosque in ChristChurch New Zealand

13 – Christian Apologists admits in a Debate ” lots of really bad things in the Old Testament” meaning that his Jesus the God of the Old Testament commanded his followers to go and kill; Men, women, children and infants. The verses in the O.T (1 Samuel 15:3) & (Numbers 31) in the name of Jesus.

Ali Atai pointed out, that Moses in the Bible in Numbers 31.

Killed Women and Children, and the non virgins girls were given to men. So they can be raped. Otherwise why would virgin girls lives spared? And not the non virgin ones? This is all ordained by Jesus, because Christians say Jesus is God. And saying that was the Old Testament doesn’t make the “crime go away”.
Read also 1 Samuel 15:3, again the Bible endorsed the killing of women and babies.

1 Samuel 15:3 New International Version (NIV)3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Yes, Jesus the God of the O.T endorses for his followers to go stick swords into infants. Numbers 31:17-18 King James Version (KJV)

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Exactly keep all the virgin girls to “yourselves” If Jesus was alive today he would be arrested for war crimes he commited in the Old Testament for endorsing such violence that, He would be held accountable under the Human rights watch, and charged for war crimes under the United nations commission.

Christian Apologist David Wood is reminded again, of the bad things in the Bible see:

David wood says, those bad things happened because of the hardness of their heart meaning they were sinners.

My response:

And so what was their sin? It was “Unbelief”..

And so God sent them a army and killed them by the sword, and even infant babies and children were killed. However the non virgin girls were killed but not the virgin ones. So if they all were sinners due to unbelief why were the virgin lives spared? And then how can babies and children be sinners? What sin did a infant commit? There’s Davids claim they deserved death because they were sinners doesn’t make sense.

Now just imagine, we said that Allah gathered a Muslim army to go and kill babies and infants women and children because they were “sinners”?

David wood, would have had a field day with this, and said look how barbaric Allah is,  He even tells Muslims to stick swords into infant babies, women and children.

So David Woods explaination fails miserably. Claiming they were sinners doesn’t work, as not all sinners were killed, and we know babies can not sin, since they are sinless. And if you want to claim all babies are born into sin, then are we to believe that all babies should be killed including all humanity because we are all born into sin? So again that makes no sense. So what we are left with, the Biblical God of the Old Testament is presented as a bad God, with bad Morals. Now someone might say, what about Allah who kills babies and infants by natural disasters, like cyclones and hurricanes.

I would argue, there is still a difference, why? Because here we see God working alone, He gives life and takes life. And so if He wishes to take a life, by natural means so that life returns to him, so be it. But then on the other hand you have a God, that specifically instructs human beings to stick swords into infants because he claims they are unbelievers and in sin, but then the same God says, don’t stick swords into older virgin girls who are sinners too. So why does God prefer virgin older girls over babies? Its really bizzar. And what makes it even more so bizzar, is when Christians all day argue how evil and barbaric Terrorism is, and they point to groups like Al-Qa’ida or ISIS who commit acts of Terrorism like blowing themselves up in market places, killing both men, women and children. And they do this because they are brain washed to believe this is what God is instructing them to do. And God is instructing them to do this, because they are sinners and unbelievers. And so the Christian will say, look at this barbarism, look at this Terrorism. And if that Terrorist said, I’m doing this because God told me to do it. The moral justification would never be accepted by a Christian, which begs the question then, why do they accept the Terrorism ordained by the Biblical God, who tells his soldiers to do the very same act of ISIS.

1) Kill the sinners

2) Target women and children

Or perhaps there is a double standard here. One standard for Arab terrorists. And another standard for Biblical Terrorists?

Let’s go to now Luke 19:27

Jesus does not stand with Israel.
For Christians who “support Israel” get ready for Shock News!!
The New Testament Christian Bible preachers the destruction of Israel!!!

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.”


Christian Apologist 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.

Christian Apologist David Wood tries desperately to respond to Luke 19:27

David wood video:

Muslim Response:

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. But that’s not a response, because they are supposed to carry it out in Jesus second coming. 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 killing.

Firstly there is an issue here? David is suggesting Jesus will kill along with the Angels. Which is still bad, it shows Jesus will be a warrior to slay the unbelievers. Secondly David lied by saying, it will only be 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, to say 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 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, and Jesus, his deciples and angels will swiftly come and punish there enemies in the most severest ways.

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.

14 – Forign Modern Wars in “God We Trust”

If you wish to compare deaths, then please account for the millions that have died to to wars started, participated, financed and armed by Christian nations under the holy motto, “IN GOD WE TRUST” What God? The Hindu God? Krishna? Satan? Who? IN GOD (YAHWEH JESUS) WE TRUST and we bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 300 000 civilians

Nearly 70% of the U.S army consists of Devoute Christians. And their Motto they fight under is in ” God we Trust” So all the U.S killings in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are all done under the ” Motto in Gods we Trust name.

If the Colonial global invasion was not done in name of Christ why didn’t any of the Church figures condemn it rather happily came here and built there churches? That is proof right there that it was happily done in the intention to spread the Gospel In fact the Australian Government the same ancestry Government of the colonial invaders reads out the Lords Prayer.

“Thy Kingdom come” your will be done”. In heaven and on Earth.

So the Colonial & Western Christians did so in thy “Jesus Name”. So when Australian Priminister “sends drones, ships, tanks, jets” around the world bombing People” Thy will be done” the Lords prayer.  Doing  the Will of “Jesus Christ”.

Here is a “Fatwah” ( Religious verdict) from Christian Apologist: Matt Slick” says that Christians can go to WAR

He qoutes:
From all of this, we can see that going to war is not wrong in itself and that a Christian can go to war under the right circumstances. End Qoute.

Interestingly enough America is continuing to do just that, supported by the Christian/Zionist Movement to establish Israel to continue to invade the Arabs according to Biblical Prophecy.


Jews Kill in God of the Old Testament:

1 – Religious Orthadox Jew Stabbs SIX People at Gay Parade Jerusalem.

Jewish Bible it says to kill Homosexuals (Leveticus 20:13) Therefore will islamaphobes be consistent and say this Jewish Terrorist is inspired by his own Torah?


2 – Arab looking jews have to wear T-shirts saying they are jews to avoid getting stabbed by a white Zionist


Here is a example how Jews accidentally target their own thinking their Arabs.
Terror Attack Against a Muslim Arab by a Jew. Notice Media does not label it a Terrorist attack. “Rather Hate Crime” But when a Palestinians do the stabbing Netanyahu calls it a Terror Attack. But his own kind he calls it a “serious matter”

Source: http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-decries-attack-against-innocent-arabs-in-dimona/

3 – British Arrested Scores of Jews as Terrorists after the bombing of the King David Hotel


New updates coming…….

List of Terrorism committed by Westerners:


Westerners Glorifying Terrorism the New Zealand Terrorist attack against Muslim Worshippers:



Refuting Mario Joseph Fake Muslim Imam now Christian

#UnderConstruction# This will update. With advanced grammar.

Exposing fake Ex-Imam now Christian.


By Mustafa Sahin


1 – This fake Imam, makes Ergun Caner, look like a Saint! No seriously listen to this guys opening statement. He refers to working as a Perish Priest in a Mosque, You sure? Did you also bless your Followers with Holy Water? Where do Christians find these people? Surely they could have said, cut the video! Let’s start again. What Imam calls him self working as a Parish Priest? You didn’t have to preach to your fake Muslim Congregation that Jesus is not God. The Quran already tells us that in (Quran 5:116)

2 – He believed that Allah never Got married? Well Christians don’t believe that too.

3 – A man in the crowed said: “who is Jesus”? One second. Didn’t you say you were preaching in a Mosque? Why would there be a non-Muslim in a Mosque in the Crowed?

3 – Where did He read 6666 in Quran. What Sureh? Clueless the number of the beast is not in the Quran rather the Total of verses are around 6,234 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayah

Interesting that He tells us to use the Quran to approve the Bible, when it suits him as you will see at the end of the Page. Yet brings up the 6666 Myth to in brace the idea the Quran is Satans work.

4 – Confused? That Jesus is mentioned alot more then the Prophet Muhammed. 25 times compared to 4? Well Moses is Mentioned 136 times how about you now convert to Judaism? Why would you be confused if the Quran in Sureh (Quran 3:84 ) says We do not make distinctions between the Prophets? Seems you didn’t really know alot about the Quran? The fact that the Prophet is mentioned less then Jesus is actually proof to the Prophethood of Muhammed, had the Prophet Muhammed invented the Quran himself, you would think, He would want his own name mentioned more, for self gratification, instead He chose, both Jesus and Moses name, much more then His.




– You found it supriseing to find the Only Women mentioned in the Quran was Mary, Wrong. The Quran has dedicated a Chapter to every Women in the Whole World called Sureh Al-Nisa “The Women” that includes the Prophets Wifes.(Quran 33:55 & Quran 24:31)
So please tell me again how much of a Imam you were? Seems you know again very little about the Quran.
-Additionally, it is facinanting to note, there is not a Single Chapter from book Genises to Revellations where the Biblical God dedicated a Chapter for Mary or Jesus Christ for that matter yet the Glorias Quran has Honored St.Mary and Put aside a Chapter for her, which shows that the Quran has honored Mary more then the Bible has honored her.
-He claims that Quran (Chapter 50 verse 23) says that Mary went to heaven in Physical Body, how ever was this Guy really Imam? There is no such saying in that Sureh.
-He goes onto declaring Jesus is Gods Son, let us read how the Holders of His own book understands the Term Son Ship of Jesus Christ read: Jesus Son how Jews understood

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.(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)

Acts 3:26 king james version Jesus called (Son) of God

Acts 3:26 New King James version Jesus is called (Servent) of God.

Notice biblical Scholars understood the Term Son to mean servent.

The Quran also testifies Jesus is servent of Allah (Quran: 19:30)

Next he went on:
– Jesus mentioned as Word of God. Yes FIGURTIVELY. Jesus preached Allahs word. Christians like to intereprete it as God. Its called Christian twist. Yes Spirit of God. Because ALL the spirits belong to God including my own Spirit.
-He went onto say Jesus performed Miracles, notice he left out the part where Jesus said in the Quran i only do these Miracles by the PERMISSION of God (Quran 3:49). Therefore Jesus is not God. He conveniently left that part out. Performing Miracles is not Unique to Jesus, Moses did the same with his stick and the serpent.
-He then compares the Prophet that he never healed the Sick, go read Sahi Bukahri(Volume 5 book 59 Number 371)
So Mr Fake Imam seems you lack very little Knowledge about your Previous Prophet.

So the Prophet did by the power of God heal the Sick. Diffrent Prophets had distinct miracles therefore comparing the 2 is a fallacy, according to the Bible Moses never raised the dead yet he is still a Prophet according to your standard. It is equally fascinating that Christians keep wanting a (Sign) to test Prophecy. Yet Jesus said” only a Adulterous Wiked nation seeks (Signs) (Mathew 12:39) therefore your OWN Jesus doesn’t like you much.
-He went onto say” Prophet Muhammed is Dead? And he wont be coming back? Coming back where to earth? What for? Even Jesus Christ said my kingdom is not of this World.(John 18:36 Bible) So thats a good thing our Prophet is not returning back to the Earth, rather going back to Paradise where we are originally are made destined for. Why not mention why Jesus will return? Unlike the Prophet Muhammed, Prophet Jesus has Unfinished buisness, read Luke 19:27 Jesus will kill those enemies who did not want him to be king over them (Read John gills commentary Luke 19:27) additionally i find it facisnating that you would leave out the (Hadith in Sahi Bukhari vol 3 book 34 No.425) that explains Jesus second coming, to additionaly Breaking the Cross that falsely accused him, Kill the Pigs Christians made lawful and Abolish the Jizya since all the Christians and Jews will convert to Islam therefore no need for the Jizya when Jesus makes it known that he is Not God rather a Prophet and Islam is the True Religion. Again you conveniently left that part out.

– I find it facisnating yet again He talk about the death of our Prophet yet his own God supposedly got beaten up and Cruicifiction on the Cross. So i challenge you to challenge what i Worship to what you Worship. Allah VS Jesus if you but dare. Allah he is the ever living irresistible never has fatigue or slumber touched him nor Death.
-He then went onto say ” Muhammed is not the Word of Allah nor the Spirit of Allah”? Let me ask you? Then who owns Muhammeds spirit?
And Whom did Allah teach his word (Zikir too?) It was Muhammed therefore the Prophet Muhammed is also figuratively the Word of Allah since he came to declare and recite what All-Mighty God revealled to him. That is the same for Jesus Christ.
-He then went onto say” he consulted a Arabic Teacher he knew for 10 years, and asked him” who Created the Universe? Well one thing is for sure, if you were a Imam you didn’t have to consult your Arabic Teacher the Quran itself tells us who Created the heavens and the Earth. Sureh (Quran 7:54 )
Of course this Christian missionaries who sounds like a Coptic Arab student of Zakariah Botros most likely wishes to force his spin on the Quran. I can assure you. Let’s continue, he askes his teacher if this Word that Allah Created the Universe with is actually Jesus that is his whole agenda but watch how his nonsense Falls apart.

“He askes his teacher who Created the Universe? The Teacher says” Universe was Created through the Word.

“Next he askes” is the Word Creator or Creation. So the Teacher says Creator. He then conflates the Two together and assumes that since Jesus is called Word He is the Primary Creator.

Let us now break down his Arguement. Who Created the Universe.

Allahs Response: The (Word) which is the command (Be) and it is. (Quran 36:82)

Is the Word Creator or Creation?
Response: the Command comes from the Creator Yes therefore Allah is uncreated but his Word or Command that Created the Universe is Created.

Let us read the verse:

When the angels said: “O Mary!
Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of A WORD from Him, his name will be the Messiah Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah.”
[Quran 3:45]


Therefore the position that Jesus speaks Gods words is clear as Gods representative. Not God himself.

Allah Also tells us in the Quran the likeness of Jesus is the Likeness of Adam he said to them (Be) command and they were Quran (3:59)
Therefore both Adam and Jesus were Created by the command (Quran 36:83)
. Notice our Fake imam left that part out convinently.

So will now our Fake Ex – Christian Imam modify a new Sect of Christianity that Add Prophet Adam to his Trinity.

Adam/Jesus+Holy Spirit+The Father? 4 in One.

It is clear the correct interpretation the Prophet is the Product i.e Creation of Allah through his Word Be!, and only his Words are Gods himself. Our Christian twisters can not grasp the idea that” Figurtively when a Prophet speaks from revelation he Auto-Matically represents the (WORD) of Allah. other wise if he is not speaking Words of Allah or Yahway then who is he speaking from?

Here is the killer blow Quran 18:109 Says that Allah has many Words in the Creation. In fact so much so that even if the whole oceans were INK could not be enough to write the Words of Allah. There Jesus is not the ONLY word. It is then Clear the Word is Gods command in what he has Created. And Gods creation is Vast.

Final point if a Person is referred to as “a word” from Allah, it means that he is a Messenger or a Prophet of Allah, John the Baptist( prophet yahya p.b.u.h) is also called kalimatullah-which means Word from Allah ( in Quran 3:39)

Thus burying dead the Christian arguement for good. Unless you like to Worship Prophet John yahya.

Very lastly the Christian in the End and by the way i was waiting for this i thought he was going to suggest he claimed to see Visions of Jesus Christ like most Fake Missionary Ex-Muslims will tell you, anyway he supposedly makes a Prayers and he astonished opens a page of the Quran and he sees Sureh 10:94.

By the way i can assure you guys this didn’t happen. For one Sureh 10.94 is so heavily used by Todays Christian missionaries to approve of the Bible its not even funny. Here is the
Response to Sureh 10: 94:
Quran Judged by injeel(Bible) if in Doubt?
Notice the Quranic verse is specific. Not if the Whole Ummah(Muslims) is in doubt. Rather if you Muhammed are in Doubt, then ask those who hold onto previous Scripture. The Doubting part is in regards to check previous Scripture if the Prophet Muhammed is mentioned there. And When we look to the previous Scripture there are signs upon signs of his Prophecy. That is why even the Prophet went to consult waraqa bin Nawaf who affirmed this as a Christian. You must remember this. In saying this. This was only Specific for the Prophet. This does not mean in anyway that the Whole thing is True. The Prophet can judge by only the true parts what ever agree with the Quran. We saw this example in the Prophets life. Where a Jew came to the Prophet and asked to be judged by the Quran upon commiting Adultery. And the Prophet was advised by a Jewish convert to Islam present with the Prophet at the time told the Jews since he knew there book” Let us judge you by your own Scripture( Meaning by the Injeel or Zabur). Because the same Truthful teaching was also preserved in the Bible. Affirming that not everything was false in the previous (Kitab) book. So then the man was Executed when the Punishment of Adultery was found preserved in his Book. Therefore the Prophet can refer back to the Truthful parts. This don’t mean all of it.

Because if Christians want to play all of it. Then why are they limiting us to Mathew, Mark, luke and John and Pauls letters?

How about the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter that says Jesus was not cruicified rather Substatuted on the Cross? Read:

Will they accept Muslims to refer to the Gnostic bible ? If not why not?

Christians missionaries claim the Quran 10:94 confirms the bible. But Sureh 19:30-33 says we have given a injeel to Jesus.

How did you conflate what is given to Jesus in his time. And to Gospels written by Annymous people most of Which Gospel writers including the letters of Paul.
Written between say 90-220 CE.

No where in the Quran does Allah say we gave injeel to Paul after Jesus death. Rather we gave it to Essa (Jesus)

Your Gospels are according to Luke According to John. Etc etc.

How did you misinterprete Sureh 19:30 and Sureh 10:94 what was Given to Jesus to what Mark,Mathew Luke and John wrote. And to the Whole of the Bible of Jesus. Therefore it is clear that the Prophet in Sureh 10:94 was told to refer to only what agreed to the Quran from the Truthful parts not the whole thing. Other wise” We as Muslims can refer to the Apocrythal Bibles that tell us Jesus was not Cruicified.

Finaly here is the killer blow let our Fake Ex-Imam read this:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.658 Narrated by Abu Huraira Allah’s Messenger (saws) said “How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus (a.s.)) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur’an and not by the law of Gospel.

Notice when Jesus Returns he will be Judging by the Quran and not the Injeel.

Therefore will our Fake Imam Revert back to Islam?

And finally here is the double standards, the Christian Missionary spoke about how the Quranic Book contains 6666 verses which represents the number of the Beast( Devils book) which was proven wrong earlier, but let us go ahead and expose more inconsistency. According to this fool the Devils Book( Quran) apparently confirms his Bible? So this Fool is telling us that Satan confirms the Truth of the Bible? What a tool!

Additionally let us Compare the Scriptures since the Fake ex-Muslim wishes”

The Bible Curses Jesus Christ VS Quran that Blesses Jesus Christ.

Acts: 5:30″ We are told Jesus was hanged killed on a Cross some Translators Use Tree which is same as Wood. As Wood is made from Trees.

Greek: Word XULON: can mean wood or Tree.

Compare now to: Galatians 3:13

Same Greek Word: XULON is in Galatians 3:13

Paul said anyone who is hanged on a Xulon is cursed. Galatians 3:13
So Paul Cursed Jesus Christ.

According to Christians Jesus became a Curse because he took everyones sins for why Jesus had to pay the Ultimate Price to be Killed! Since Jesus had become the Biggest Curse. By Taking all the sins of the World became the most sinful. For Why He had to be killed.

Now you Christians ready for the SHOCK!
While the Bible Curses Jesus Christ the Quran tells us that Jesus is BLESSED! Where ever He is. Quran 19:31

So Mr Fake Ex-Imam convert to Christ, you sadly converted to a religion that has Cursed Jesus Christ. While you supposedly left Islam that Blesses Jesus Christ oh..the Irony!

In conclusion:
Christians make up fake conversion stories in order to convince others. That a so called IMAM left Islam for Christianity, After all no name of the Mosque he supposedly was a Imam was ever mentioned. Therefore none of it can be verified if he were a TRUE Imam of a mosque, take into consideration Christianity is declining across Europe and America for why they resort to such cheap tactics.

Christians have to resort to such tactics because of the very fact that the Christian faith is on a rapid decline causing wide world christian pandemic.

Proof: Christianity on a Decline.

America’s Changing Religious Landscape

Show less


Christology & Theology Evolved in the Four Gospels


Last updated: 27th Sep 2021

By: Mustafa Sahin

In these remarkable examples, we demonstrate how the Gospels writers forced Christology and theology into the Bible. See how the later Gospel writers tried to Improve the earlier Gospels to turn Jesus into divine God. There are also examples of improvements made on the Salvation, and Crucifixion narrative, which is the central tenants of the Faith.

These are the believed first dates of the Gospels:

■ Gospel of Mark. 65-70 A.D

Christian Scholars believe Mark wrote first.

■ Gospel of Mathew & Luke 71- 89 A.D

Then they believe Mathew and Luke sit somewhere in between.

■ Gospel of John: 90-100 A.D

Followed by John being the last of the four Gospels

Let’s begin:

1 – What do the 4 Gospels say about Jesus being killed on the Cross by the Spear.

Mark:  No Mention

Luke:   No Mention

Math:  No Mention

John:     19:34 (Yes)

Note: You can’t simply die from being Crucified for few hours on a Cross. The last Gospel wanted to ensure that Jesus was confidently killed. So that no one suspects,  Jesus survived a Crucifixion, because Christians wanting to make salvation part of the central doctrine.

2 –  Jesus called: “Rabbi” (Improved ) to being called “Lord”.

Mark: 9:5: Jesus called Rabbi

(Same story)

Mathew 17:4 Jesus called Lord

Note: Christians will often say, one reason why Jesus is God, is because His known as being “Lord”. So we can see Mathew enforcing the term Lord instead of Rabbi.

3 – Jesus from being named Master improved (elevated) to being called (Lord) will come.

Mark 13:35 master will come.

(Same Storey)

Mathew 24:32 Lord will come

4 – Jesus called Messiah improved (Elevated) to Son

Mark: 8:29 Jesus called Messiah

(Same story)

Math: 16:16 Jesus called: Son of living God

Note: All through Jesus is called Son of God in other passages in Marks Gospel, Mathew does not like to use (Messiah) narrating the same Story from Mark 8v29.

5 – Everyone God improved to My Father?

Mark 3:31 Whoever does the will of God

(Same Story)

Mathew 12:46 does the will of my Father

Note: Mathew seems to, want to make the father more personal for Jesus. Whoever does the will of God, seems to isolate Jesus. And it seems Mathew didn’t like that.

6 – Teacher improved to Lord

Mark 4:38 Jesus called Teacher

(Same story)

Mathew 8:25 Jesus called Lord

Note: Why is the Gospel writer in Mathews so bothered with the term “teacher’, was Jesus not a man and not just God according to the Trinitarians? If Jesus was human, why not leave it as a teacher, why force the term Lord into the text? this indicates, that the scribe is pushing a Jesus as being Godly agenda, and is not satisfied that Jesus human attribute as a Teacher is mentioned. Now a Christian may say, a teacher can also, be defined as an attribute of God. Though, then I would ask, then why did not Mathew leave the term Teacher, if it was the same as calling someone Lord?

7 – Jesus taught the Greatest commandment is to say God is One Lord.

Mark 12:29 Greatest to say” our Lord God is ONE

(Same Story)

Mathew 22:37-38 Jesus taught to love God.

Note: The “ONES” of God replaced Loving God. Today many Christians especially Trinitarians don’t like to talk about God as being One, but rather Taurine. And they talk about God as being love. Well, this is due to Mathew, who was manipulating the message, by trying to slowly remove the notion that it was great to say God is “One”. Let’s rather just talk about how God is about love here. Interesting hey?

8 – Jesus said: “Why do you call me Good?

Mark 10:18 Jesus say’s  “why call Me Good”?

(Same Story)

Mathew 19:17  Why call Me Good (Removed) from New International Version)

Note: This is proof Later Scribes tried removing the imperfections of Jesus. They wanted Jesus to look more perfect and thus more devine. Though, the King James Bible still has it written as; Why call me good” the New International Version, has removed, Why call me Good, and instead reads, “what is good”, because Bible scholars say the NIV uses earlier dated manuscripts. This proves Scribes can not be trusted as they are constantly trying to add or remove things they don’t feel comfortable with. And at times, get caught out.

9 – Improvements to cover up the Human limitations of Jesus. Why couldn’t Jesus Find figs on the Tree?

Marks 11:12-14: Because it wasn’t the season for figs.

(Same story)

Mathew 21:18: it wasn’t the season for figs (removed)

Yet again, the scribe who wrote Mathews Gospel seems to get annoyed that Jesus shows human attributes of limitations in Marks Gospel, so He removes the part of the verse, where it displays Jesus having ignorance, on why figs are not growing. It seems the scribe for Mathew, is slowly trying to render out the limited human attributes of Jesus. Interesting though that the Christians want to promote that Gods nature has two natures, one being divine, the other being human, yet the scribe is trying to remove out the poor human qualities out of His God. interesting?

10 –  “Trinity”, verse.

Mark: No mention

Luke: No mention

Mathew: 28:19: Trinity Vaguely Mentioned.

John: 1:5-7: Trinity. Mentioned.

Note: So the wording of (John 1 John 5:7) has been changed in the (New International Version) from Spirit and Son, found in the KJV Version. It’s been changed back to; Water and Blood. This further illustrates, a scribe was playing with the ancient manuscripts and changing the words. This is one of the clearest points, that Christian scribes were forcing Christology into the Text. The earliest ancient manuscripts do not have the 1 John 5:7 passage, it was added later. See here even a Christian Scholar admitting that the “Trinity verse” was a later addition not found in the earliest source Material. See video:

11 – Jesus word (begotten) Son

Mark: No mention

Mathew: No Mention

Luke: No Mention

John: Yes. John 3:16

Note: Biblical Scholars say the term begotten in (John 3:16) is an “Interpolation”.

The word “begotten” has been removed from some of the Gospels by the same bible scholars as fabrication after they realized that this word does not exist in the most ancient manuscript. So notice how a Scribe was trying to add words in the Manuscripts to try and make it look as though Jesus had a special unique connection to God. See the NIV, NLT, ESV Biblical Versions for John 3:16. Word Beggoten Removed.

12 – When was Jesus declared Son of God.

Mark: Baptism or Birth

Mathew: Baptism or Birth

Luke: Baptism or Birth

John: From the Time Universe was Created(John 1:14)

Note: The Gospel of John is not satisfied Jesus is declared Son of God on earth. So it starts to exaggerate and claim Jesus was always Gods Son, and both God and Son had a Unique relationship even before Jesus was born on Earth. Even so that their heavenly relationship was there even before God made the Universe.

13 – Jesus Miracles powers improved

Mark 8:22-24, Jesus takes some time to heal ONE man’s Eye, he had to spit.

(Similar event)

Mathew 20:30-34 (No spitting required)

Note: Jesus heals the Eye of TWO people with one touch immediately. No spitting is required. Seems Mathew was trying to enforce more power on Jesus.

14 – Willing for Cruicifiction improved

Lukes 22:42: Jesus prays to father to Remove cup (i.e) Crucifixion.

(Same events)

John 6:38 Jesus confidentially comes out to do the will of Father.

15 – Who witnessed Ressurection Story.

Marks Gospel (No mention) in Earliest Manuscripts. 9-20 Emitted.

Mathew: Yes

Luke: Yes

John: Yes

16 – When was All Authority given to Jesus.
Mark: No mention
Mathew 28:18: Yes.

17 – Was Jesus Sinless?

Mark: No Mention

Luke: No Mention

Mathew: No mention

John:   1 JOHN 3-5: Yes.

18 – Jesus: forgiving Sin like God, improved.

Mark:  Story missing

Luke: Story missing

Mathew:15:4 Jesus affirms the death penalty.

John: 8-11 Jesus removes Death Penalty.
Forgives Sins.

19 – Jesus called (God) explicitly.

Mark: No Mention

Luke: No Mention

Mathew: 1:23 Yes mentioned

John: 20:28 Yes Mentioned.

20 – Disciples are told to Prayer in Jesus name.

Mark: No Mention.

Luke: none.

Mathew: vague

John: 16:27-28 Yes.

21 – Jesus is the only way through to the Father.

Mark: no mention

Luke: no mention

Mathew: no mention

John: Yes 14:6

22 – Jesus improved in Knowledge.

Mark:  (13:32) Jesus as SON, not all-Knowing.

Mathew:(24:35-36) Jesus is not all-knowing.

Luke:(2:52) Improvements made.

John: 21:17 Jesus is ALL-knowing

23 – Improvement in Salvation:

Matthew 19:17 ” keeping (commandments) gave you salvation.

John 6:40 ” Believing in SON gives you everlasting salvation.

Note: you can see the shift of what was most important for salvation was to keep Yahway commandments that shifted to Accept Jesus as the SON. Clear Sonship theology being forced in.

24 – Jesus improvements made having control over his own Life and Death.

Luke: 22:42″ Jesus requests his father to remove ” Death” i.e the Cup”. In other words, Jesus shows he has no control over his own life and death.

John: 10:17″ Jesus has suddenly got control over his own life and death and has powers to lay down his own life.

25 – Jesus being preached as having Eternal pre: Existence.

Mark: No pre-Existence mentioned

Luke: No pre-existence mentioned

Mathew: No pre-existence mentioned

John: Yes Did have pre-existence. John 1:1 and Before Abraham was ” I AM.

Note: New Testament Scholar of the Bible, Bart Erhman tells us about it here;

26 – Jesus said put down your Swords. Whoever lives by Sword dies by the Sword. (Improvements made to show Jesus was peaceful)

Mark: no mention

Mathew: (Yes) Mathew 26:52

Note: Let’s compare Marks account with Mathew. Marks version of the events omits the verse about putting down the swords, instead rebukes the Romans in (Mark 14:48) Let’s take a close look;

Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. (Mark 14:47)

“Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? (Mark 14:48)

Now let’s look at Mathew:

With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Matthew 26:51

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Matthew 26:52

So as you can see, unlike Marks Gospel, Mathews Gospels try to portray Jesus being more peaceful. Mathews adds the verses put down swords, and yet the earliest gospel Marks mentions nothing as such. This demonstrates Mathew gospel was trying to improve Jesus status to show He was more peaceful rather than an aggressor.

To conclude:

Christian missionaries claim that the earliest Bibles still prove Jesus divinity for example in Mark 2-1-12 Jesus had the power to forgive sin.
However, what we read in Mathew 6:14, the Disciples of Jesus also had the power to forgive other peoples Sins. Therefore teaching that forgiving Sin doesn’t prove your God. In addition. We are not suggesting that there may not be signs of slight divinity towards Jesus in the Earliest Gospel. What we are showing is the Snow Ball effect that most of the verses on strong divinity come later in the Gospels than to the ones Prior. Proving that Theology was being improved over time.

Go to any Christian missionary ask him for evidence from the 4 Gospels to prove that Jesus is God. Watch how 95% of the time he will Quote from the last Gospel of John.

Here is another  example:

A Christian references verses to Prove that Jesus is God. He uses:

12 verses from the Gospel of John.

1 verse  from the Gospel of Mathew

0 verses  from the Gospel of Luke & Mark

Source: http://bugman123.com/Bible/JesusIsGod.html

Another example: Christians use the latter parts of the four Gospels. Matt Slick a Christian Apologist does not even Quote the Gospel of Mark or even the Gospel of Luke to prove Jesus is divine in this particular article. He uses (Mathew) and (John) see;

Matt Slick uses:

8 verses from the Gospel of john

5 verses from the Gospel of Mathew

0 verses from  Gospel of Luke & Mark

Here is yet another, Christian Apologist named Simon Turpin from AnsweringGenises puts up his Top 10 “Proof for Jesus being God” though it was a bit difficult to count here is the approximate lists:

22 verses from the Gospel of John.

8 verses from the Gospel of Mathew

1 verse from Gospel of Luke

2 verses from the Gospel of Mark


So as you can witness yourself, the trend is pretty much the same, very rarely will they Quote from Gospel of luke, and extremely rarely from Marks Gospel. Is this not enough evidence to prove the point of a Christology being evolved? The interesting thing is, a Christian will only prove Jesus is God from the Gospel of Mark with multiple verses, only when you really “press him” otherwise it’s the last resort a Christian will go to, to prove Jesus is God in the earlier gospels, this in itself proves yet again our point, that there are no real convincing verses in earlier gospels especially the Gospel according to Mark if there can assure you Christians would be referring to them as the first resort, not the last resort, and in big frequent numbers as we see for the Gospel of John and Mathew.

Even Bible Scholar Professor Bart Ehrman agrees with this that Jesus early disciples didn’t think He was God. Rather this evolved later on. Watch at:
From (3minutes) https://youtu.be/Yte-ad6Y31s

Fact: according to Christian Theology of testing Authenticity. Closer to the Source more Authentic. Later is least Authentic.
That is why Christians often make the arguement why should anyone accept the Quran since it came 600 years later? And Christians say, the way Christians prove accuracy is by referring to the earliest writings, yet Christians by that standard should only accept Marks Gospel, but they don’t, they accept later writings.

If doubting our article, try this experiment when talking with Christians. Ask them to give you the “TOP 10 Bible verses to proves that Jesus is God”. When you see that not a single reference is made from Marks Gospel, then you shall come to know the truth of our arguement, no real test it for yourself.

Just to give you more evidence of how Scribes deliberately (remove words) change the text to “hide” verses where it proves Jesus is not God, take an example at this.

The Bible tells us, that Jesus as the Son (the second Godhead of the trinity), has “NO” knowledge when the “Hour” is, let’s read:

New International Version
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mathew 24:36)

As you can see the NIV says: nor the son.

However when we read the King James Version & New King James Version:

King James Bible
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Mathew 24:36)

New King James Version
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.

Nor the Son, has been “Removed” from the passage, why?

TodayBiblical Scholars tell us, the (New International Version) bible, is more accurate because it uses much earlier ancient manuscripts, compared to the Manuscripts used for the King James Version.

So what we can now see is that this trend of manipulating the Bible, changing words, and removing words, to force a theology was like a part of the culture among scribes. One needs to now ask the question if this much dishonesty was present in later manuscripts, imagine how much dishonesty there were in earlier scribes? Now a Christian may say, well at least we are honest to change it back to (nor the son). I would say, well thank you, but what about now changing all the other areas where forced theology has also been inputted. Of course, they won’t be honest to admit those. Also, this shows no matter how honest today’s Christians want to claim they are, scribes in the past have tarnished a reputation. One can only now imagine, if scribes can act dishonest, then we can never be sure every single one of them also acted honestly. Frankly, the Bible can not be 100% trusted, that every single verse, is exactly intact the way it was revealed in the original. And since we only have copied of the copies and not the originals, this only begs the question, how much more differences we would find, if we had all those century originals to compare them with.

And because God made it clear to them that Jesus as the Son, was not God by showing us his ignorance of the hour, they tried removing the verse from the text. Now talk about, how dishonest one can be! Of course, only now they have added it back to the Bible in the NIV, because they got caught red-handed when, ancient manuscripts were studied, and it was found out that the earliest manuscripts did include the “nor the son part” Well thank you for being honest after getting caught red-handed!

This further illustrates, the Biblical scribes were forcing a dogmatic approach to make Jesus look more than a God, in a slow evolutionary process, notice they couldn’t do it right away, because it would be way too obvious so they spent years, trying to Corrupt the text.

Please also visit a related article, where we show more examples of Christians playing forced interpretation to the Biblical text to force a theological agenda: https://mustafasahin33.wordpress.com/2020/04/30/figurtive-literal-games-in-the-bible/

Of course, Christians don’t just tamper with Christology narratives about Jesus but also other theological teachings see this for example:

Bart Ehrman writes that there were “Theological changes even in the Gospel of Luke:

He writes;

I can now wrap up my discussion of the textual problem of Luke 22:19-20 and the intriguing question of what Jesus said at his Last Supper (according to Luke).  I have argued so far that the longer (more familiar) form of the text, found in most surviving manuscripts, is a change made by scribes, not what Luke originally wrote (this is where Jesus indicates that the bread is his body given for others and that the cup is the new covenant in his blood shed for others).


Luke’s Last Supper and Orthodox Corruptions of Scripture

Christians often tell Muslims, that they no longer need to follow the laws of the Old Testament, and Jesus brought a new covenant. And yet this is based on a Textural variant, not in the Original.

We can show even more theological corrections;

Here is another interesting read, Jesus says in the bible whoever gives up things for his sake will receive 100 folds in the next life. That includes a wife. So if your wife is treacherous and an unbeliever and you give her up, then Jesus will reward you 100 times over. Jesus will give you 100 times as many wives in the Christian paradise. But it seems as the Bible was written from Mark to John the term wife was introduced and removed.

The first Earliest gospel has no word “or wife”.

And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, no man hath left the house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s <Mark 10:29,30

Now Mathew and Luke finally introduce “or Wife”.

“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home OR WIFE or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God
<span;>Luke 18:29

<span;>And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother OR WIFE or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. Mathew 19:29

Interesting John finally corrects both Mathew and Luke, and removes “OR WIFE” and any other specific term Christians will be rewarded with.

Already the reaper draws his wages and gathers a crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may rejoice together. John 4:36

So in conclusion, we see Christian scribes forcefully correcting the Bible as the Bible progresses, from Mark to John.


Now for Rebuttal section =

A Christian Apologist, who goes by the name of, Nakdimon Yesman, is one of the Authors at the Answering-Islam Website. Joined me in a text, debate on the subject, so I’ll share the exchange here, where He has tried to attempt to prove that the Gospel of Mark does in fact according to him prove Jesus is God. So let’s begin;

■ Christian Writes:

(Mark. 2:7) “Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?”

Jesus here is God because only God can forgive sin.

Muslim Response:

Read this short article answers everything, that needs to be answered on Jesus forgiving sin? http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/jesus-christ/if-jesus-isnt-god-how-did-he-forgive-sins

■ Christian writes:

The gospel of Mark starts with this:
The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God to be as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”c —

3“a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’ ”d

4And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.6John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7And this was his message: “After I come the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

We see here that according to Mark John the Baptist us prophesied by the prophets, Isaiah and Malachi. When we turn to those prophecies we see that this forerunner is to clear the way for YHWH and go before YHWH to announce him. Yet Mark points to JESUS as the one John the Baptist is sent before and to whose coming to proclaim. And so does John. In both Mark and John’s Gospel John the Baptist points to JESUS as the One he is sent before. So follow me:

1. Malachi and Isaiah prophesied about someone who would go before the God of Israel and proclaim his appearance
2. Mark, John the Apostle and John the Baptist identify JESUS as the one John the Baptist was sent before and announce
3. According to Mark and John JESUS is the God before whom John the Baptist was sent according to the prophets.

So there is no “evolution” of the identity of Jesus Christ from the Gospel of Mark to the Gospel of John. It’s simply gross ignorance of Biblical Christology that leads people to conclude this so-called evolution.

There you have it. Now I don’t expect you to keep your word and concert today, because your prophet also admitted to breaking his oaths when he saw fit. But I have provided you with the evidence and I do expect you to show your untrustworthy character.

Muslim Response:

Of course, when the Christian fails on his first point about power to forgive sins, the next attempt for a Christian is to get again misinterpret another passage of the Gospel of Mark and to try and make Jesus look more than He is, so the first assertion is that John the Baptist was proclaiming someone more powerful then him to come, so the Christian Apologist thinks that if someone is greater then John, He must be God and that this God, was Prophesied in Isaiah and therefore it is Jesus.

The verses they use:

Mark 1:7
And he began to proclaim: “After me will come One more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.

Mark 1:8
I baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit

There are several problems here if John the Baptist says, his more powerful, all it could mean is that Jesus unlike John the Baptize is a Prophet, and we know that John is not the Prophet, so that can explain why John believed Jesus was greater then He was and it had nothing to do with Jesus being God.

If Jesus can Baptize with the Holy Spirit, unlike John who can only baptize with water, does it mean Jesus is God? Of course not. First of all, at no point does Jesus baptize anyone or is it said he’s done a baptism “by the spirit” or Holy Spirit. Therefore there seems to be a contradiction or an error, in Marks Gospel.

Secondly, here Jesus shows, that Baptizing people with the holy spirit, Disciples can do that as well.

Let’s read: (Mathew 28:19) Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, “baptizing them” in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So here we see,  though Jesus himself did not perform baptizing using the Holy spirit he rather showed anyone can “Baptize” people with the holy spirit. The Disciples also had the power, to baptize them (other people).

Therefore baptizing using the Holy Spirit was not something that only Jesus could do.

Also if Jesus was connected to Isiah (making way for the Lord) And Jesus because he went in front of Isreal as the forerunner for God. Jesus is therefore God? There are the ambiguous things Christians rely upon. They can’t show anything clearly. Its clear Jesus is Gods representative on earth. Doing the fathers Works. Nothing about Jesus being God himself. Jesus said I do not my own will but do as the father tells me, in other verses, He dies nothing of himself (John 5:30). The Bible also says:

“Men of Israel, listen to me! Jesus the Nazorean was a man whom God sent to you with miracles, wonders, and signs as his credentials. These God worked through him in your midst, as you well know.” [ Acts 2:22 ]

So people going to see Jesus as (Lord) as Gods representative means nothing. Because Jesus wasn’t the same as God the Lord, rather the Lord God was working through Jesus, as ACTS 2:22, clearly shows.

And even if for arguement sake, Jesus was doing more powerful works, like baptizing with Holy Spirit as opposed to just water, all this could mean they’re seeing “Gods works” done through Jesus. Just like Moses was made like a “God” sent to Pharoah in (Exodus 7:1)Therefore you need to be consistent when Moses was sent to Pharoah was Moses God? no of course not. Rather Moses Represented God. Similar account for Jesus. And the Bible teachers even through Paul, Jesus never claimed Equality with God.

■ Christian writes:

You haven’t the slightest clue how to properly exegete the text of scripture.

Exodus 7:1 doesn’t say Moses is God, because the rest of the text demonstrates he isn’t. God simply announces Moses to be supreme over Pharaoh as God’s representative. As you know, the word “Elohim” does not have to mean God or refer to the True God. However, the prophecies in Malachi and Isaiah are very clear and have nothing to do with mere representation: They announce an appearance of YHWH himself and announce that Jesus IS that appearance of YHWH. The law of agency does NOT work with appearances, as I explain on my website, which you claim to have read. And it is hilarious to see Muslims run to Paul to try to undermine the Divinity of Jesus, while when it suits them, they will turn around and accuse Paul of being the source of the supposed fallacious teaching of the Divinity of Jesus, which is why they reject him as a true Apostle in the first place. Did Paul teach the Divinity of Jesus or didn’t he?

But to address your Philippians 2 claim, that text proves what you so desperately try to deny. The text does NOT say that Jesus didn’t claim equality with God, it says Jesus didn’t grasp onto his equality with God: the whole point of that portion is that Jesus, because of his equality with God, since the text says he existed as God, he didn’t insist on his divine privileges but humbled himself and took upon himself the form of a slave. And with that example, Paul exhorts us to take on the same mentality of humility, not to grasp onto and insist on our privileges, but to humble ourselves to favour others.

You Muslims are hilarious! The very reason you reject the gospels and claim their corruption, ALL OF THEM, is that they teach Jesus’ Divinity. But when it’s convenient you want to pretend the Gospels don’t teach the Divinity of Jesus and claim a supposed “evolution” that simply isn’t there. Too bad, Mustafa, no dice. As you are not dealing with a rookie. You will have to do much better than this.

Muslim Response:

In (Exodus 7:1) How is Moses supreme over Pharoah. By representing himself to be like God. That’s the point. It is interesting how he says Elohim doesn’t have to mean it’s God. But look at the inconsistency. If it were Jesus in Exodus 7:1 instead of Moses. I bet you would have interpreted it to be the meaning no other than God. And this is the Christian games, like the term Theos. When Theos in John 10:35 is used for Jews Theos (God) this doesn’t mean there is God. Rather Godly people. But when the same term Theos is given to Jesus in Hebrews 1:7-8 it suddenly becomes literal God. See the double standards?

It gets more interesting. Christians tell us Human beings are created in Gods image. Therefore the Jews in John 10:35 appeared as God are called Gods (Theos) see Nakdimon will interpret this as Metaphorical. But when Jesus appears as Gods image and is Called God. It suddenly becomes literal and not Metaphorical.
See more Double standards. The Bible teaches our bodies are Gods temple (1 Corinthians 6:19) Therefore it was Jesus body the temple that appeared as God in Marks Gospel. Not Jesus himself. Otherwise, we are All appearing literally as God as well as the walking talking temple of God. Will Nakdimon claim we Human beings are also God for appearing as the temple of God. I don’t think so. So it is then clear for Christians to make things up as they go through forced inconsistent interpretations.

Then Nakdimon says, we know from the context that Moses is not the True God”.

However, we can do the same if we look at the context of Jesus you claimed Jesus was equal to father? Yet the Bible tells us, Jesus said the Father was Greater than him. So your interpretation again for Phillipians does not work. Therefore the context of looking at other verses can disprove Jesus being God. Nakdimon then speaks about How Jesus human nature wanted to be humbled therefore showed a lower class at times but look how this again is inconsistent for example:

Our Christian friends claim Jesus is half-human therefore his human nature showed weakness. However, the Christians have no escape. Because the very same Christians use the Human nature of Jesus to prove his also God because Jesus human nature was too perfect to commit sins. That’s why a Christian will say Jesus is God because only God can not sin.

As you know our human nature is tested in committing Sins. Jesus human nature was too perfect to sin.
Therefore Christians use the Human nature of Jesus to prove diety when it suits them. But when Muslims show human nature proves him not God in other aspects the Christians then try to avoid it by saying oh..but that’s human nature. Yet at the same time, they try and prove even Human nature to be God through Him being sinless. All of the Gospels do not teach the divinity of Jesus at best they are mere misinterpretations. See for example Appearing as a God in John 10:35 for Jews does not mean they the Jews are God. Moses appearing like a God to Pharoah doesn’t mean his God. We Human beings appearing as the temple of God doesn’t mean we are God so why should it mean it is God when Jesus appeared as one? Nakdemon has no answer to this inconsistency.

He then asserts that Muslims, believe ALL of the Gospels are corrupted because they teach Jesus to be divine. But then Muslims claim there was an Evolution of Divinity within the same book.

You distorted the Muslim position. For one, we Muslims do not claim EVERYTHING is Corrupted. Rather there are passages within the Text that can not be trusted. Even Christian Apologist David Wood and Dr James white Believe as Muslims do for example the last 12 verses of Marks Gospel both James white & David Wood admit it Un-Authentic. I believe that at best most of the Things that point towards Jesus divinity are either 1) a Misinterpretation or 2) Interpolation ( I john 5:7) or a Narrative being Injected not part of the original message.

As Christians claim closer to Source more Authentic. Further away least Authentic. So by that notion, it’s astonishing to see Most of the Proof Christians use for the Divinity of Jesus comes in later Gospels. Hence Least Authentic by their Standards.

■ Christian writes:

It is of no consequence how many times Matthew, Mark, Luke and John testify of Jesus’ divinity. What is important is that they ALL testify of his divinity. And if they do (as they do!) then there can be no case of evolution. All you are doing is simply presupposing that every reference to any topic should have an equal amount of representation in every source. That is simply fallacious! You don’t treat the Quran that way. Even in the Quran, where you have only one author, you have the same event in different chapters being described differently with different details. Yet you don’t insist that they are told the same way, do you? Nope! but then again, that’s Islamic consistency for ya

Muslim Response:

If only the Book of Mark had proof on divinity but sadly you failed to provide sufficient evidence in your attempts which were debunked. It is equally interesting you state there are no consequences how many times each book mentions a proposed divinity for Jesus we say “oh yes it does”.

Even New Testament Bart Ehrman Acknowledges it does for why he has even written and entitled a book called” How Jesus became a God”.

Notice The New Testament Doctor even admits The Earliest sources of the New Testament do not in any way present Jesus as Deity rather it’s an Evolution that crept into later versions of the New Testament.

See: https://youtu.be/6JU9J0XVlzQ

So you can deny as much as you like about it having no consequences. If it had no consequence you wouldn’t be trying to break your back trying to find evidence or say convincing evidence from earlier Gospels for the divinity of Jesus. Not only is there an Evolution of Divinity there is also evidence of Improvements and Exaggerations about Jesus divinity and status as posted in the above references of our article, you can even read more of them here:


As for the Quran having different chapters with the same author. Notice it is the SAME Author. Not different Authors as it is for the Gospel writers. Therefore we are getting a contradiction of Improvements made in the story. Whereas the Quran has one Author which makes sense if he gives more clarification this bears no issue since the storyline comes from one single author. Whereas the new Testament comes from many independent Authors, therefore if their stories don’t add up when someone is lying or attributing fabrications. If ALL four Authors are not narrating the same story or same theology then that begs the question of the story is fraudulent. Even in today’s Police investigation systems, this is how they judge witness testimony to see if the story adds up. If one has a variant story or a story that does not equally clarify the identity then it gets dismissed. That’s how we look at the Gospels from the same investigative method to determine “truth”.

So there you have it, folks, the Christians fail to provide evidence of Jesus deityship in the Earliest of the four gospels, which again is a testification to the truth of my article showing you clearly how, the deityship of Christ was a later invention, and like I said earlier in my article, if Christians believed Marks Gospel present’s a good case for Jesus divinity, then Christians would use them as there strong recommendations, yet I showed you above earlier in the article, Christian Apologists like Matt Slick though, He also believes there are several verses in (Marks) Gospel of Jesus divinity of Jesus being God, yet in this part of the article:


Here we can see Matt Slick fails to include Marks Gospel, He doesn’t even reference them from Marks Gospel but rather uses verses out from (Mathew) or (John) gospels, which in itself proves my point, that Christians themselves deep down understand that appealing to (Marks Gospel) don’t have very strong verses to prove the deityship of Christ. So instead they “market” other verses people that Jesus is God. That in itself proves my point, that there are no special verses or verses that can convince anyone for sure that Jesus is God.


Now to other “Rebuttals:

■ There are Christians who then attempt to use even other verses of Marks Gospel to force the interpretation that Jesus is God, see for example Mark 2:28 “Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Muslim Response:

They claim, that because Marks Gospel says, Jesus is Lord of Sabbath, does this mean His God? See answers; https://answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/lord_of_sabbath.htm

■ Christians use “Jesus performing Miracles” for the Proof He is God in Marks Gospel.

Jesus Walks on the Water, in Marks Gospel, and Jesus heals the Blind, therefore His God. (Mark 6:45-52) also, Jesus Heals the Blind (Mark 8:22-10:52)

Muslim Response:

This is not a measure to prove that Jesus is God. Because Jesus said in the Bible, I can of myself do nothing. (John 5:30)
Jesus Here is teaching that, whatever He does, is from the Power of God, who’s given him those powers to perform those miracles.
The Bible also tells us, many other human figures were able to perform “miracles”

See for example:

Exodus 7:10-12 KJV – 10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. 11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. 12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.

Here we see God working through Prophets to perform miracles. Therefore Jesus performing Miracles Is nothing unique or Special. Even in our modern world, Christians tell us they have faith healers, and they claim to perform miracles.

We even read that, Jesus own Disciples could do miracles;

“And he called his twelve disciples together and began sending them out two by two, giving them authority to cast out evil spirits. He told them to take nothing for their journey except a walking stick—no food, no traveller’s bag, no money. He allowed them to wear sandals but not to take a change of clothes. Wherever you go,” he said, ‘stay in the same house until you leave town. But if any place refuses to welcome you or listen to you, shake its dust from your feet as you leave to show that you have abandoned those people to their fate.’ So the disciples went out, telling everyone they met to repent of their sins and turn to God. And they cast out many demons and healed many sick people, anointing them with olive oil.” Mark 6:7-13

Here Christ grants his disciples the authority to perform miraculous healings and exorcisms. So will Christians now accept that the Disciples are also God? Now a Christian may say, well Jesus gave the authority to Disciples to do those things. However that then begs the question, because all though Jesus has given authority to Disciples, Jesus also has taken authority himself from the father: (Mathew 28:18)

So why is Jesus any different? Both the Disciples and Jesus took authority from something bigger than themselves. Disciples took authority from Jesus, and Jesus takes authority from the father. Therefore then Jesus equally is not God for the same reason the Disciples are not God, for the standard of being “given authority to do those miracles”

Furthermore,  in this verse below from the Bible, we see that “Even” false Prophets can perform great miracles:

“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect”. (Mathew 24:24)

So this proves to have the ability to perform miracles, which don’t mean you are a divine God. Even false Prophets can perform them.

■ Christians then use these passages from Mark to again from that there was a Divinity of Jesus in the earliest Gospel:

In his trial before the Sanhedrin Jesus is once again charged with blasphemy because of his response to the high priest’s question: “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” (Mark 14:61) Jesus responded, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). Then the high priest tore his clothes, charged Jesus with blasphemy, and condemned him to death (Mark 14:64). Why did the high priest respond that way? Because Jesus quoted from Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13–14 and applied the words to himself. In Daniel 7 the divine Son of Man comes before the Ancient of Days, and all peoples and nations serve20 him. The Pharisees recognize Jesus’ divine claim here and charge him with blasphemy, intending to put him to death.

Muslim Response:

The claim here is that Jesus was charged with Blasphemy because all, He says in those verses, is the “Son” of the blessed” And He said, the son of man sits at the right hand. Notice Jesus if God, He should have said, I am the Son God. And I sit on the main throne rather He said; His son of God and Son of Man. And his sitting beside the father and does not sit as the father, thus a clear distinction. And being Son of God does not mean you are God himself, because the Bible tells us, there are many Sons of God.

See my article response to Matt Slick; Servant of God or Son of God?https://m.facebook.com/groups/295144897630904?view=permalink&id=870886546723400

As for the claim, that they put him to death because of Blasphemy? Because He was claiming divinity, this is just a false interpretation, as though people only killed people for claiming they are God, or the son of God, in the Bible Jesus tells us, that people used to get killed for even claiming they are “Prophets” read; Mathew 23:30-33

30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

So notice, the same Pharisees that wanted Jesus killed, Jesus shows us in the above verse they also killed “Prophets”, thus even claiming your a prophet can get you killed, and Jesus did was known as the Prophet, see;

John 6:14 KJV – 14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that (prophet) that should come into the world.

So one could imagine there killing him because, He was known also as a prophet, and we know what happened when people claim they are prophets, they get killed for being depicted as false Prophets, who are also known as sons of God.

Also consider, that we shouldn’t be accepting the Testimony of Jesus “enemies” as they can make a false charge against anyone. They were always an enemy to Christ, so even if they claimed Jesus was going around claiming He was God, doesn’t make it true. Jesus called the Pharisees Hypocrites, Sneaks and Vipers.

The Bible teaches that Sonship is not even unique for Jesus. Anyone who overcomes the trials of this life shall be Gods Sons.

“He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son”. (Revelation 21:7)where the bible teaches anyone can become God’s son.

■ Christians also use this verse to prove Divinity:

“If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in HIS Father’s glory with the holy angels.” Mark 8:38

Muslim Response:

Christians try to make Jesus out to be the same as the father, as they claim they don’t claim there are three Gods but one God. And this God is “One” but in three persons. But then strange enough they try and use Mark 8:38, to claim that Jesus will come in “His father’s Glory”.

Well, now that doesn’t show “three persons” now does it? Rather than Jesus taking up the 1st person in the Godhead, now that seems to be a contradiction.

Secondly, Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'” (John 20:17)

If Jesus did come in the father’s glory, which means the father was on earth the same time Jesus was on earth, why is Jesus saying in (John 20:17) I am going up to my father? Thus proving that the father never came to the earth.

Jesus further stresses his Father is not on earth but in heaven; None of those who call me `Lord’ will enter the kingdom of God, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” [ Matthew 7:21 ]

If the father did come in his glory to the earth, Jesus would have said; the one who does the will of my father who’s on earth and in heaven, yet (Mathew 7:21) suggests the father is really in heaven and not really on the earth. And if Christians insist, He was really on earth, are they telling us that God the Son, and the Father died on the cross?

So God died on the Cross? A God that has no beginning nor end, yet tasted temporary death? Just as humans taste temporary death?

And in the same verse, Jesus says ” my god” which means; He has a God. Furthermore, Jesus says;

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me (John 14:1).

Jesus makes a distinction between Him and God. Believe in God. Then He says believe also in Me. So Jesus coming in his Fathers glory does not mean, Jesus is the same God as the father, rather Jesus comes figuratively as the Fathers glory since he will be representing much of his Fathers works on earth.;

For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human (1 Timothy 2:5)

So Jesus is just delivering God’s Glory to humankind as the mediator.

There is a Christian by the name of Tim Barnett his website found here: https://www.str.org/w/the-deity-of-christ-in-the-gospel-of-mark

That tries to provide “Evidence from Marks Gospel for the divinity of Jesus, I read through them, and quite frankly most of them were extremely weak, and I’ve answered most of them, but to be fair I will address just a few of them, that maybe have not been answered before, so here we go;

Tim Barnett then uses the next verse: The  unclean spirits recognize Jesus as the Holy One of God, who has the power to destroy them.“And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, ’What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God’”( Mark (1:23-24).

Muslim Response:

If you notice the ending of the passage which gives it away: ”  I know who you are—the Holy One of God’”(1:23-24).

If Jesus was the God, the passage would have read: ” I know who you are—the Holy One God’”(1:23-24). And not the Holy One (of) God’”(1:23-24). As the verse reads.

This clearly shows, Jesus is (of) God, meaning He comes from God (of)  God, and not God himself. In addition, the term “Holy” is also a title given to angels. (Psalms 89: 7-34)

■ Christians then use these verses from Marks Gospel to Prove Jesus is God.

( Mark 5:6-7) Where Jesus has’ authority and power.

( Mark 7:18-19) Jesus has the authority to change God’s law.

Muslim Response:

The Christian needs to be consistent because the Bible teachers, all though Jesus has authority to change the law, or has an authoritative potion. This does not mean His God. Read these verses;

Jesus said: My doctrine is not my own; it comes from him who sent me.” [ John 7:16 ]

So here we can changes Jesus makes, it doesn’t come from Jesus own doctrine, but rather this instruction comes from God himself who sent Jesus, and Jesus is merely transmitting those new laws.

As for Jesus having “Authority”, the question is did He give himself that authority? The answer is No. Let’s read;

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Mathew 28:18)

If Jesus was God, would God need to give himself Authority? The answer is no. God always has Authority, He doesn’t need to take authority from someone else, the fact that he said he was given authority means at one time Jesus didn’t have authority. Are Christians telling us, Jesus was not a God at some stage of his life?

This proves that no matter what kind of authority, Jesus was given, there was always a greater authority than him.

Tim Barnett then brings this verse: Jesus’ words are put at the same level as God’s words.

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” ( Mark 13:31)

Muslim response:

It is extraordinary how far Christians will go to exaggerate a sentence about Jesus.

Jesus said: My doctrine is not my own; it comes from him who sent me.” [ John 7:16 ] So the words, Jesus speaks are not his words, they are from the one who sent him. “Jesus also said; My Father(God) is greater than I” (John 14:28). Thus it’s the father’s words that will not pass away, not Jesus own words. Notice Mark 13:31, does not say ” my “own” words. Then that would mean Jesus own words. The fact that he said “my words” could mean, Jesus is displaying the father’s words.

Tim Barnett then brings up; Jesus places Himself above men and angels in His relationship to the Father.

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” ( Mark 13:32)


I am astonished that a Christian can use, Mark 13:32 to prove that Jesus is God. Tim Barnett says, Jesus places himself above Men and angels.

The Question is does He hold himself above God the Father? Not at all. Prophets are known to be above Angels or Men, so that doesn’t prove a thing.

The Bible even suggests Jesus was made “lower” than angels.

But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than angels for a little while.
(Hebrews 2:9)

Now just imagine how Blasphemous that would sound if, Jesus was God, and Hebrews read:

But we do see God, who was made lower than angels for a little while.
(Hebrews 2:9)

Also, the verse itself proves Jesus as the son, is not God, the verse clearly says, the “son” who is the second person in the Godhead (Trinity), has no idea when the “hour” is. So it’s incredibly bizarre that this Christian even tried to attempt to use this verse to prove that Jesus was God.

If Jesus was God in this verse:

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” ( Mark 13:32)

Then this is how the Verse should have looked like:

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, but only the Son and Father” ( Mark 13:32)

However, the text says, nor the son…

In conclusion of my rebuttal section:

I need to stress this point again, no matter how many verses Christians wish to bring up in the Gospel of Mark to prove Jesus is God, at best most of the things they bring up as you can see, are ambiguous, and not very explicit like we find in the Gospel of Mathew or gospel of John where Jesus is clearly and explicitly identified as God:

19 – Jesus called (God) explicitly.

Mark: No Mention

Luke: No Mention

Mathew: 1:23 Yes mentioned

John: 20:28 Yes Mentioned.

That in itself confirms the point, that Jesus is called explicitly God does not come until later into the gospels.

I challenge all those “Christian Apologists” who think there is a strong case for Christology in the “Gospel of Mark”, I CHALLENGE them, that whenever they want to prove that Jesus is God to any Muslim, I challenge them, to never use the Gospel of Luke, Mathew or John. Never mention them in any of your Apologetic material, never use them in your debates, whenever you want to prove that Jesus is God, only use the Gospel of Mark, since you sincerely believe that Marks Gospel is sufficient enough evidence to prove that Jesus is God. And I bet not a single Christian Apologist, will be brave enough to only use the Gospel of Mark. Because deep down, they know that without using the other gospels their case will never be as strong, and that is why you will never see a Christian using Marks Gospel alone to prove the divinity of Christ, it’s rather always in conjunction with using either the Gospel of Mathew or John or Paul’s letters. So let’s see this brave Christian activist who is willing to use “only the Gospel of Mark” for the rest of his life, calling people to the proof that Jesus is God. I would love to see, how many people his convinced and converted that Jesus is truly God.


Pr. Bart Ehrman has a new article where He admits there was a “low” Christology in early Gospels while “High” Christology in later Gospel.

In saying that, He also suggested even in lower Christology he didn’t make himself equal with God. Or the Same God. And that Jesus being divine meant, being more than ordinary human-like divine as in he could perform miracles..etc.

In What SENSE is Jesus “God” in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? My Change of Mind


Does the Christian Trinity trace back to a Early Jewish sect Binitarianism?

Note: this is a rough draft copy. Spelling errors will be corrected in a New copy coming soon…..


Br Mustafa Sahin ( Muslim) vs Steven Tilly (Christian Triniterian)

Introduction to the Debate:

A Christian Missionary wrote that there was historical facts that Jews believed that God had plural Beings. He was obviously talking about Binitarianism. I actually replied back saying that this was the view of a Heretical sect among the early Jews, and that they believed that there are TWO powers in heaven when in actual fact according to Christian Triniterians it is only ONE power in heaven divided into THREE Persons, i even showed him Christian Apologetic website’s that agrees they are heretical and there theology is not even Biblical. Source:http://www.gotquestions.org/Binitarianism.html

(Note: it was amusing to see towards the end of the debate the Christian missionary fled the debate leaving un-answered questions to our objections)

So here is where the Debate continues..

Steven Tilly wrote:

The only thing you’ve shown is your ignorance of history, Binitarianism was the norm of ancient Judaism and was outlawed as heretical in the 2nd century. Oh, and Miroslav Volf refutes nothing, he only shows his ignorance of ancient Jewish beliefs and wants Christianity and Islam to sing Kumbya (wishful thinking. The concept of Two Powers in Heaven was the view of God’s unity of 2nd Temple Judaism and before that.

Mustafa Sahin:
Did the early Jews believe in a development of the Trinity?

They use this link http://twopowersinheaven.com

This is refuted here https://youtu.be/HdVTx1I1ESM “They call it Binitarianism”

No Christian Triniterian accepts two powers in heaven. Rather they accept 1 Power in Heaven divided into Three and not divided into TWO.

These Christians when trying to locate the Origins of the Trinity since they are under the pump of it being a latter invension they desperately refer to a Jewish Herectic sect, however in doing so they are not getting the Trinity but rather Binitarianism that God is revealled in TWO rather then Three. So refering to these Early Jew Herectics only creates more problems then solving the Origins of the Trinity by appealing to early Bible followers on how they interpreted the Bible.

There are some (links) written by another Christian Apologist named (Mark Bennet) here: http://www.answeringabraham.com/2016/02/did-early-jews-believe-in-two-powers-in.html?m=1
) who also claims that the Early Jews who were Binitarianism
did not view themselves as herectical.

Mustafa Sahin:

However of course they wouldnt have no Herectic group claims they are. That is determined by an opposition party, where Jews living prior to 200 BC and after the Birth of Jesus did not see it that way, and in fact did see them as Herectic even up until the Second Centuary. If those early Jews were only seen as Heretics in the Second Centuary. Are you saying they went Heretic from the beginning? If not then why don’t you preach beritinism rather Trinity? Why not preach Two powers instead of Three Powers? In fact one can argue Triniterians plagerized from the Heretics and modifying there own Triniterians invention.

Steven Tilley wrote:

Ok, now it’s obvious that you’re ignorant, selectively rational and don’t know a bit of Jewish history, and NO, binitarians were not a heretical sect with Judaism until the 2nd century, Binitarianism was the monotheism of the ancient Israelites.

As for your claim we “stole” from Jewish heretics, you stole your form of “monotheism” from disbelieving Jews, i.e., Unitarianism was a later invention of the 2nd century by heretical/disbelieving Jews; therefore, Islam is a heretical sect and a Arabic plagiarism of Judaism.

Mustafa Sahin:
Again let me repeat because logic and rationally doesn’t seem to be your strong point.

A)Who are the second Century people who classified them as Herectics. It was your Christian Scholars who appeal to the New Testament

B)Monotheism starts with Adam and Abraham so we all took from that premise. The point were your borrowing erd. Besides i don’t mind borrowing Monothiesm if that is the true nature of God. It answers Christians who claim Muslims borrow Mythologies from the Heretics when now we can say the same for Triniterians like your self appealing to the Early Jews.

C) The difference is not only did we all correctly borrowed. Monthesm Christianias modified it thus Adding the 3rd so if your appealing to the early Jews then by that notion you are a Herectic.

D) And if your appealing to Herectics for approval. Then we can too refer to the Heretic gnostocs for the Approval of Jesus not being Crucified.

E) You can’t have it both way either they are Herectic or they are not. Your Christian Scholars say that for them claiming there is ONLY two powers in heaven this makes them Herectics. Rather Christians say there is 1 power in heaven in Three Persons. Your Christian wensites fatwah say they are herectic and there teaching is not biblical. I sent the Fatwah source.

F) The Gnostics did not claim there heretic aswell. But Christians dont consider there interpretation. Notice Christians pick and choose what to accept doesn’t matter if there heretics by latter christian fatwah. That is called commiting the fallacy of inconsistency.
Can i quote and use the interpretation of Heretics?

G) Thanks to you, I now have a new argument to make the Gnostic Apocryphal Peter stronger. Apparently we can refer to Heretics even if its  classified heretical  by Christians. If im selectivity rational. Your selectively & inconsistent thus making you irrational. You take your pick.

H) Christian Fatwah website admits Binitarianism is not even Biblical. Read what they write Qoute:
“The Trinity is a great mystery, and even the most learned Bible scholars cannot adequately explain it. However, the Bible, specifically the New Testament, teaches that the one true God exists as three Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Bible also teaches that it was the Son who became incarnate, not the Father or the Spirit. Thus, Binitarianism is not biblical”.End Qoute.


View it herectical…ahh the irony. If you claim the Origins of the Trinity date back to Biniterism then that means you triniterians copied a herectic sect thus plagerisizing from the Herectics and then modifying.

I) This get’s even more amusing. Christian’s tell Muslims not to refer to the books of Heretics known as the Gnostics Apocalypse of Peter that says Jesus did not die on the Cross. Christians say they are early heretics. But then these same Christians refer to the Early Jewish Heretics to make a Theological Reference.

Steven Tilley wrote:

Ok, you’ve so far made endless red herrings, circular logic, never address the premises but went down the same circle your required to, why? Because the Quran says so, the very definition of circular logic.

-Who are the second Century people who classified them as Herectics. It was your Christian Scholars who appeal to the New Testament?

Steven Tilly Wrote:
No, it was Jews leading towards the Bar Kokhva revolt who were trying to get rid of other sects by labeling them heretics, including those who believed in two powers in heaven.

-Monotheism starts with Adam and Abraham so we all took from that?

Steven Tilly Wrote:
Says who? The Quran? That’s a completely circular argument

-The difference is not only did we all correctly borrowed. Monthesm Christianias modified it thus Adding the 3rd so if your appealing to the early Jews then by that notion you are a Herectic.

Steven Tilly Wrote:
Funny, because Islam is by definition a Arian heresy. And again, your ignorance is stupefying, Binitarianism was the monotheism of the early church and ancient Jews, it’s called History, something the Quran and Islam reject because it refutes the Islamic narrative.

-And if your appealing to Herectics for approval. Then we can too refer to the Heretic gnostocs for the Approval of Jesus not being Crucified.

Steven Tilly Wrote:
Now you’re mixing apples with oranges, if you’re going to appeal to Gnostics, then you’re blaspheming your God because they believe the world was created by an evil God, so you inadvertently concede that Allah is evil. And to add, they didn’t believe Jesus had a body, which your own Quran affirms that he had a body, so you’re being very inconsistent and showing how unstable the Quran really is.

-You can’t have it both way either they are Herectic or they are not. Your Christian Scholars say that for them claiming there is ONLY two powers in heaven this makes them Herectics. Rather Christians say there is 1 power in heaven in Three Persons. Your Christian wensites fatwah say they are herectic and there teaching is not biblical. I sent the Fatwah source.

Steven Tilly Wrote:
These “christians” don’t speak for me, don’t represent me, and don’t tell me what to think. Your appeal to what “christians” say and not what historical theology says, only tells me that you’re intellectually dishonest and like most Islamist fanatics, will grasp at any straw to attack an opponent even though that same argument refutes your position.

So, you either concede to the historical fact of the plurality in the Godhead or go living on in your fantasy world where Alexander the Great was a good Muslim even though historically he was a pagan and a sodomite. Take your pick.

Mustafa Sahin Counter Rebuttal;

-He said no it wasn’t the Christians it was the second centuary Jews.

Mustafa Sahin:

He just took hook line and Sinker. Thank you for affirming that Jews considered other Jews Heretics so the Early Jews were not the ONLY group there were OTHER groups who did not consider them on the right path.

-He asked who said so that Abraham and Adam was Monotheistic.

Mustafa Sahin:
Is this guy serious so you reject the Quran when it say they were on monotheism..?? this guy is the joke of the year. Its clear he doesn’t think about his answers. His just answering for the sake of answering. And wants to talk about Circular Reasoning. He says that the Jews are a historical fact. In his attempt to address my Question regarding why Christians added a 3rd Power. Notice he didnt answer the Question. Yet talks about me not answering his questions. You have no answer why you added a 3rd power to the TWO powers. What im merely showing is that when you appeal to those heretic groups. It just makes your position worse when it cam be used against you. Second Century Jews and todays Modern Christian Apologist Are saying the Early Jews are Evil for they deny the Third Godhead. And in fact those early Jews do not even claim Jesus is the Second power in the Heaven. In fact say nothing about the Second  Power refers to the Son. So notice you drew this picture in your head thinking they already accepted a Quarter of s premise in the Trinity. Evil people can still contain elements of Truth thats the point. They may be evil and deny the 3rd God head. But according to you they still hold to truth that they say the truth when depicting God as atleast TWO powers. Therefore we can make the argument yes the Gnostic also commit evil be tarnishing the Attributes of God but they still hold truth and rely what really happened to Jesus on the Cross.

So now i ask you Mr Tilly, answer the Question? “are the Early Jews evil, for denying the THIRD Power in heaven? For stating there are two powers instead of Three Powers?

Additionaly i find it amusing you reject the Christian (Fatwah) sites who disagree with You and accept my Muslim position. So those who have the same spirit as you are on my side why?

The Fatwah i gave was from GotQuestionsDotcom which testifies that. Here again is the Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/Binitarianism.html
They say it is NOT Biblical and they are even Protestant Triniterians.

In fact there website has good educated Scholarly credibility they qoute,” All of our answers are reviewed for biblical and theological accuracy by our staff. Our CEO, S. Michael Houdmann, is ultimately accountable for our content, and therefore maintains an active role in the review process. He possesses a Bachelor’s degree in Biblical Studies from Calvary Bible College and a Master’s degree in Christian Theology from Calvary Theological Seminary (Kansas City, MO).

Steven Tilly counter Rebuttal:

– He just took hook line and Sinker. Thank you for affirming that Jews considered other Jews Heretics so the Early Jews were not the ONLY group there were OTHER groups who did not consider them on the right path.

Steven Tilly wrote:
These are the same Jews who rejected Isa, so if disbelievers are true, than Islam is false. And you ignored the whole point, they rejected their own historical theology.

-Is this guy serious so you reject the Quran when it say they were on monotheism…LoL this guy is the joke of the year. Its clear he doesn’t think about his answers. His just answering for the sake of answering. And wants to talk about Circular Reasoning.

Steven Tilly Wrote:
I reject the Quran based on its falsehood, lies, and false accusations and the author’s ignorance and the fact that Muhammad is a false prophet.

-he says that the Jews are a historical fact. In his attempt to address my Question regarding why Christians added a 3rd Power. Notice he didnt answer the Question. Yet talks about me not answering his questions. You have no answer why you added a 3rd power to the TWO powers. What im merely showing is that when you appeal to those heretic groups. It just makes your position worse when it cam be used against you.

Steven Tilly Wrote:
The only thing you’ve shown is that when historical facts don’t agree with your ideology you reject it, this is the definition of selective rationality.

-Second Century Jews and todays Modern Christian Apologist Are saying the Early Jews are Evil for they deny the Third Godhead. And in fact those early Jews do not even claim Jesus is the Second power in the Heaven. In fact say nothing about the 2nd Power refers to the Son. So notice you drew this picture in your head thinking they already accepted a Quarter of s premise in the Trinity. Evil people can still contain elements of Truth thats the point. They may be evil and deny the 3rd God head. But according to you they still hold to truth that they say the truth when depicting God as atleast TWO powers. Therefore we can make the argument yes the Gnostic also commit evil be tarnishing the Attributes of God but they still hold truth and rely what really happened to Jesus on the Cross.

Steven Tilly Wrote:
Philo, the Targums, and apocryphal works from that period all show there was a binitarian view held with 1st century Jewish beliefs, with Philo it was the Logos, with the Targums it was the Memra, מימרא. Oh, and in case you didn’t know, early Christianity was viewed as a Jewish sect within 1st century Judaism, there was no one Judaism in the 1st century, there were Judaisms, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Hellenistic Judaism; go learn history.

God, Jesus, and Judaism: An Old Testament Bridge to Faith

-Answer the Question are the Early Jews evil for denying the THIRD Power in heaven. Bu stating there are two powers instead of Three Powers.

Steven Tilly wrote:
Every human on earth is evil.

-oh..so you reject the Christian Fatwah sites who disagree with you and accept my muslim position. So those who have the same spirit as you are on my side why? The Fatwah i gave was from GotQuestiomsDotcom which testifies that http://www.gotquestions.org/Binitarianism.html
is NOT Biblical and they are Protestant Triniterians.

There website read:

All of our answers are reviewed for biblical and theological accuracy by our staff. Our CEO, S. Michael Houdmann, is ultimately accountable for our content, and therefore maintains an active role in the review process. He possesses a Bachelor’s degree in Biblical Studies from Calvary Bible College and a Master’s degree in Christian Theology from Calvary Theological Seminary (Kansas City, MO).//

Steven Tilly Wrote:
Oh, so because they’re scholars I have to blindly follow whatever they say? If only I had a brain.

Mustafa Sahin counter Rebuttal:

In my response to Jews being against Jews;

Steven tilley writes:
These are the same Jews who rejected Isa, so if disbelievers are true, than Islam is false. And you ignored the whole point, they rejected their own historical theology.

Mustafa Sahin:
Partly true….but the point your missing they differed on God’s nature. You tried to make it as though there was one Agreed Nature of God amoung the Jews. And to escape this reality of contradicting views Steven appeals to Islam being amongst it. Well in doing so you didn’t prove one correct Theology you in fact Testified more contradicting views. So how is your circular reasoning helped you? it did not instead it just created more Contradictions on all sides regardless if its Triniterianism or Islam. As there were vast difference of Opinion on Jesus or the Nature of God.

Steven Tilley Writes:
I reject the Quran based on its falsehood, lies, and false accusations and the author’s ignorance and the fact that Muhammad is a false prophet.

Mustafa Sahin:
So you reject the Term God is ONE in the Quran. Hmm..so the Quran is not even accurate on saying God is One. Amusing.

In response to my Question where did the Early Jews identify three powers in heaven? And its a historical fact they did not.

Steven wrote:
“The only thing you’ve shown is that when historical facts don’t agree with your ideology you reject it, this is the definition of selective rationality”.

Mustafa Sahin:
Notice again he avoided to address the Question at hand by a red-herring fallacy. He doesn’t answer where the early Jewish sect he appeals to Worshiped God as Three Powers in Heaven he simply diverted the Question about me picking and choosing selectively? Thats not my Question. And since this guy wants to label me as being selective? This is the same Guy that selects which Scholars agree to his own Theology and dismisses any others at will, even Triniterian Scholars that disagree with him. And he wants to talk about being ” Selective?”.

I wrote earlier to Steven that, the Early Jews are herectics for they made evil statement by dropping the THIRD power in Heaven only decalaring TWO powers. Because i made the point that since Steven Tilly dismisses  ( Gnostics ancient writings which show verience in the Cruicifiction narrative of Jesus Christ) Steven  simply dismissed the veeient narrative since it came from Gnostics who were  Blasthemiers. However ever we show also Early Jews were also making blasthemy  aswell yet he selectively picks there version yet drops the Gnostic who make blasthemy aswell yet does not accept any truth from them where as he accepts truth from the early Jews even though they do not testify to the third and it is blasthemy to reject the third power. Yet has no issues using them as s Theological point of reference, yet selectively knocks back Gnotics groups who go against other Christian theological issues. Steven doesn’t even address this major contention he writes:

Steven Tilly Wrote:
Philo, the Targums, and apocryphal works from that period all show there was a binitarian view held with 1st century Jewish beliefs, with Philo it was the Logos, with the Targums it was the Memra, מימרא. Oh, and in case you didn’t know, early Christianity was viewed as a Jewish sect within 1st century Judaism, there was no one Judaism in the 1st century, there were Judaisms, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Hellenistic Judaism; go learn history.

God, Jesus, and Judaism: An Old Testament Bridge to Faith

Mustafa Sahin:
Again i didn’t ask if they held the view of biniterinism rather the view of the Third power which you dismissed  in reference to the EARLY JEWS. And thank you for affirming there was not 1 VIEW of Jews thus proving that many other interpretations flurished with the 1st centaury.

I asked Steven:
are the Early Jews evil for denying the 3rd power.

Steven Wrote:
“Every human on earth is evil”.

Mustafa Sahin:
Is this Steven serious? He dismissed the Gnostics such as the Apocyplse of Peter as being evil people thus he rejected any work done by them on that premise. Yet this same Steven accepts Theological reference from Early Jews who he considers Evil as well ? Talk about selective inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty!

I wrote to Steven saying: That i showed him Scholars that agree to the Position that Berinitnism is Heretical and not biblical and why would these Triniterians be on my side?

Steven tilley writes:
Oh, so because they’re scholars I have to blindly follow whatever they say? If only I had a brain.

Mustafa Sahin:
I find it ironic why would those who profess the trinity claim binitarianism is not biblical. This is the same website that strongly promotes the Trinity as a Protestant movement. Yet there holy spirit tells me i am right and you are wrong. Why would a Non-Biased Scholar one who affirms the Trinity reject the binitarianism view. You say you have a brain and don’t blindly follow? Sure you can believe what you like, but if your measuring your brain power to a Scholar i must ask you what are your own Scholarly credentials? Why should we reject an Expert over the Bible to your opionion? And like i said” The Scholar i qouted has the same divine spirit you have so why is there a clash between the Holy Spirits guiding both you and him?

In fact the Scholar i quoted from GotQuestionsDot.com is not alone. There is even 4th century Christian Scholarly Fatwah who also affirm this read:

“In the mid-4th century, orthodox apologist Epiphanius of Salamis noted, “Semi-Arians…hold the truly orthodox view of the Son, that he was forever with the Father…but has been begotten without beginning not in time…But all of these blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and do not count him in the Godhead with the Father and the Son”

Source: (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide; Section VI, Verses 1,1 and 1,3. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, pp. 471–472).

Notice Epiphanius is another Triniterian who calls out Binitarianism as Blasthymers. In fact you yourself have identified them as EVIL yet you refer to there Work but Reject the Gnostics who have also bad Qualities yet you dismiss ALL there WORKS. Talk about Hypocrisy.

So what have we learnt. We have learnt that Christian Triniterians selectively pick and choose from (evil people) that deny the third power and in fact are Heretics classified heretical by Historical and Modern Triniterian Scholars.

But when it comes to the Gnostic Apocyplse of Peter that tells us Jesus was substatuted on the Cross we hear all these excuses of oh..there evil..oh there also labelled heretics. Then the Christian has double standards and rejects everything the Gnostic offers on Theology but then accepts Evil Heretics from the Early Binitarianism Jewish Sect.

Finaly we have learnt that the Trinity concept can not be traced back to the Binitarianism the Christians appeal too. Like i said there isn’t a single statement they see the Spirit as a separate Person in the Godhead rather identify the Spirit and Jesus being same person. For why they speak of TWO powers as opposed to three powers. And Steven like i said ” Appeals to the Early. But what we have learnt is that his Triniterian concept of Adding the third power to those same Early Jewish Sect before Christ is not found with them but comes much later after the second to third century after Jesus Christ. Which shows that the Trinity of the third power was a latter introduction. So refering to the Earliest actually went against you.

In fact we can now even take it a step further this seems to get better the more we analyse i know its a side point but worth mentioning Christians say the Quran misrepresents the Trinity, we can now say the Trinity misrepresents the Diety of Bernitism since they do not identify God as Three distinct Persons or Powers. See the more we go in the worse it gets for you when appealing to the Oldest Jewish Sect and there theology being relevant to the Trinity actually works against you. Hmm….he wants to talk about Quran and authore of ignorance?

Conclusion of the Debate. Steven Tilly fled from the debate. With no further counter Rebuttal to my responses. The original debate is locateded on (Br.Yahya Snow) Facebook page.

So what we have shown today to Steven:

1: Early Jewish sect did not believe in Three Powers in heaven as Triniterians believe in.

2: We showed that early Jewish Sect was deemed Heretical by some Modern Day Christian Scholars as well as Second Centuary Jews and also 4th Centuary Christian Triniterian Scholar.

3) We showed there were differing opionion on the Nature of God between 200 B.C & Second to Third Centuary Jews/Christians. We had Jews who believed in 2 powers in heaven & 1 power in Heaven then later on came the the third persons in the God head. Hence there was not one standard opionion.

4) We showed that Christians who appealed to the Early Jews may have plagerized those Heretical ideas to modify a modified version of Berinitnism and tried to make the Trinity. So much for Christians who accuse the Quran for copying Heretics of the Passed.

5) Since Berinitnism came earlier then Triniterianism ( i.e) adding the Third Person as a Separate Third Power to Godhead, this could very well mean the Triniterians are Heretical since the Earlier is more Authentic?

6) We showed that if Christians want to appeal to heretical early Jewish movements who were evil and blasthemed the God head for only stating there were TWO God head powers instead of Three. Then Muslims can indeed by that standard refer to the Works of Heretical Evil Gnostics and use there sources of historical information to disprove the Cruicifiction narrative for example( Gnotics Apocyplse of Peter) a Record that tells us Jesus was substatuted on the Cross).

By all these standards of inconsistency. The Christian Triniterian puts himself in a awful position by refering to the sources of Berinitnism which can be used against him.


The Preservation of the Qu’ran Reply to Samuel Green. Part 2/2

Preservation of the Quran. Part 2/2

Textural Critizism of Quran. Debunking Samuel Green from Answering-Islam.

(Note: after we destroyed Samuel Greens Article in Part 1) Samuel Green from his frustration was completely muted on vast majority of our Responses, so he resorted to debating further Chapter 9 &10 of his article which Brother Ijaz Ahmed may Allah bless his soul completely Debunked Samuel.

Lets hear the debate” Samuel Green Vs Ijaz Ahmad

Note: If Samuel Reply’s we will post a update.

Debate beggins after Brother Mustafa Ahmed in the Screen shots bellow explain to Samuel Green that he is Wrong to claim there are multiple Quran. Warsh and Hafs version.
These are modes and not different Qurans:

Mustafa Ahmed writes” Samuel, hope u stop twisting the text from now on

Samuel Green writes” I have not twisted anything. Muslims are the ones who say there is only one Qur’an with no variations. This post is helpful.

Ijaz Ahmed writes: ” There is one Qur’an, just seven Ahruf. You do know what Qur’an means, yeah?

Samuel Green writes: Qur’an means recitation. The different qira’at are different recitations.

Ijaz Ahmed writes: You might need to go back to school. Qur’an is from qara’a yaqra’u, it is one. The modes are multiple, the articulation is one.

Samuel Green writes: So there are different recitations of the recitation?

Ijaz Ahmed writes: There more modes to the articulation, but one articulation. This is what happens when you use words you don’t know. Styles come from the modes and the modes come from one articulation, which is the Qur’an.

Samuel Green writes:
They are not stylistic differences but the words are formed differently: active or passive, plural or singular, etc.

Ijaz Ahmed writes:
That is from the ahruf, not from the articulation. You seem to be confused. Let me simplify it for you. One, just one, there is only one articulation. This one has ahruf, which are modes. Simple.

Samuel Green writes:
I am not confused at all. Islam is confused on this topic. As for what is meant by these seven ahruf, there is a great deal of difference on this issue. Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276 A.H.) recorded thirty-five opinions on the issue, and as-Suyootee listed
over forty. Ibn Sa’adan (d. 231 A.H.), a famous grammarian and reciter of the Qur’aan, even declared that the true meaning of the ahruf was known only to Allaah, and thus to attempt to investigate into this issue was futile! (Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an, p. 175)

It is absurd to say there is a difference between articulation and mode. Recitation is recitation. The whole topic is simply a doctrine developed to harmonized the variants of the Qur’an.

Ijaz Ahmed writes:
Thank you for copy pasting, however, while the scholars differ on the categories of what the Ahruf are, they do not disagree that the Ahruf exist, thus that copy pasted quote is not only irrelevant, it only serves to demonstrate you are an inept ignoramus.

“It is absurd to say there is a difference between articulation and mode.”

Sadly, only an uninformed and uninitiated person will claim an articulation is a style.

“Recitation is recitation.”

Nope, this is silly. There are modes of recitations, which styles belong to. Styles are not modes and modes are not styles. This is where Lughat, Balagh, Sarf wa Nahw come into play. It is clear you do not know the difference in English and thus due to your ignorance you reduce them to “being the same” and thus you cannot distinguish between them. We refer to this as the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum, it’s usually what children do when they do not understand something.

“The whole topic is simply a doctrine developed to harmonized the variants of the Qur’an.”

Variants of the Qira’at or of the Ahruf? See, I’ve picked up on your mistakes. I’ve realised you don’t know what you’re talking about. Since you claim to be educated, here’s a simple question. You use the term “synoptic Qur’ans”, I thus, posit that you cannot give me the Arabic term for this phrase. Despite constant and incorrect usage of it. Simple, prove me wrong.

Samuel Green writes:
No, but that is not the nature of differences between the different versions of the Qur’an.

Ijaz Ahmed writes:

1. I’ve asked him to refer us to the Arabic term that means “synoptic Qur’ans”, which is a phrase he has been using. He has been unable to do so.

2. The Qur’an was revealed with modes, the modes all go back to one source and were taught, recited and memorized together with each other.

3. He tries to claim that this means the Qur’an has variants like the Bible, however this is a false comparison as the variants in the Bible are due to textual emendation and have no link with Jesus, nor can they be said to be from Jesus or his disciples.

4. The very earliest manuscripts of the Qur’an attests to it’s letter by letter preservation. Green does not understand how orthography works and as such he confuses a development in orthography with the change in the reading of the Qur’an.

5. There is one Qur’an. Just one. This one articulation has modes of the Ahruf, and from these modes, we have the styles or Qira’at of the Qur’an. Still one Qur’an. His problem is that he does not understand the Arabic language and it’s devices and so tries to lower the Qur’an to the level of the man made Bible.

For points 2 and 3, a Christian scholar, Dr. Michael Cook who studies Islam and had been critical of the Qur’an, accepted that there was mutawatir transmission of the Qira’at on gigantic level.

In other words, through stemmatics, the Qira’at were being recited in multiple cities at the same time, on a massive scale yet in these cities separated by months of travel, they all had the same recitation between them. So if Samuel Green is saying that variants were developed and then a accepted, this is not only a false understanding, it would mean that he is dishonest, incredible and purposely ignoring the most sophisticated research and published studies on the historical transmission of the Qur’an.

Samuel Green:
> 1. I’ve asked him to refer us to the Arabic term that means “synoptic Qur’ans”, which is a phrase he has been using. He has been unable to do so.

Your question is irrelevant. The companions of MUhammad made their own collections which differed in sura order, number and content. These are synoptic.

2. The Qur’an was revealed with modes, the modes all go back to one source and were taught, recited and memorized together with each other.

No, because many of the modes are not counted authentic. And there is no agreement about what these modes even are. A simpler solution is that this whole doctrine is a doctrine of harmonization.

3. He tries to claim that this means the Qur’an has variants like the Bible, however this is a false comparison as the variants in the Bible are due to textual emendation and have no link with Jesus, nor can they be said to be from Jesus or his disciples.

Any textual variant of the Qur’an is called a mode. This is just avoiding the obvious and seeking to harmonize the variants.

4. The very earliest manuscripts of the Qur’an attests to it’s letter by letter preservation. Green does not understand how orthography works and as such he confuses a development in orthography with the change in the reading of the Qur’an.

The manuscripts were burned to standardize one version. This is catastrophic for the preservation of the Qur’an. You cannot boast about burning all the early Qur’ans to standardis one text.

5. There is one Qur’an. Just one. This one articulation has modes of the Ahruf, and from these modes, we have the styles or Qira’at of the Qur’an. Still one Qur’an. His problem is that he does not understand the Arabic language and it’s devices and so tries to lower the Qur’an to the level of the man made Bible.

The word Qur’an means recitation. The qira’at are different recitations. You cannot say there is one recitation and many recitations at the same time. There are many versions of the Qur’an.

The different Readers read the words differently and put the vowels and diacritical marks in different ways. To say that all of these 1000s of differences go back to Muhammad is absurd. All of the differences exist where the Arabic text is vague. That is there source not Muhammad.

Ijaz Ahmed writes:
Before I begin, and I do want to keep this brief, there is a relevant quote concerning you with which I would like to preface my reply with:

“A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” – Bertrand Russel.

With that said, I could probably write three books on a rainy day about your statements and their inaccuracies. however you are not worth my time or my effort, but for the sake of whosoever may read this, I will provide some response.

“Your question is irrelevant. The companions of MUhammad made their own collections which differed in sura order, number and content. These are synoptic.”

– Merely saying that something is irrelevant, does not make it irrelevant. You are irrelevant. Personal copies are meant for personal consumption. What you are positing it beyond silly. A codex is not automatically a canon, but a codex can contain the canon. These are therefore not synoptic by any means. Now that we’ve covered that mistake, you would need to qualify your usage of the term, “synoptic Qur’ans”. Why do you refuse to qualify it, yet persist in using it? It is because you are wrong, and do not understand the topic and as such, are making things up as you go along. So, my friend, demonstrate your integrity and qualify what you claim, or accept that you are wrong and uneducated on this topic of study. It’s quite simple, a man with answers and knowledge can respond to what he is asked, a man who lacks both, finds every reason not to answer the question.

“No, because many of the modes are not counted authentic. And there is no agreement about what these modes even are. A simpler solution is that this whole doctrine is a doctrine of harmonization.”

– There are only 7 modes. Everyone accepts there are 7 modes. No one says there are 8 or 9 modes, or 5 or 6. So your statement that they “are not counted as authentic” is completely fictitious. This is evidence that you have confused the Ahruf with the Qira’at.

“Any textual variant of the Qur’an is called a mode. This is just avoiding the obvious and seeking to harmonize the variants.”

– Wrong! Ahruf != Qira’at. One comes from the other. A textual variant is not attributed to the Qira’at, it can be due to lapsus calami or to development in orthography, ergo not only are you wrong, you’re making this up as you go along. Lastly, these variants in recitation existed in parallel with each other, for their to be harmonization there needed to be divergence and then convergence, not parallel transmission via stemmatics. Ergo, you’re wrong again.

On another note, a variant between the Qira’at must be mutawatir, and as such, any variant, or a shadh, or gharib, or ahad variant is wholly rejected, because it does not mean ijma due to its lack of criteria to suffice mutawatir transmission. In other words you’re very wrong.

“The manuscripts were burned to standardize one version. This is catastrophic for the preservation of the Qur’an. You cannot boast about burning all the early Qur’ans to standardis one text.”

– Wrong, we have texts that pre-date the alleged rescension with DAM 01 – 27, in fact you quote Sadeghi’s paper in which he specifically mentions this and is met with agreement. Burning of unauthorized copies is what preserved the Qur’an. As opposed to the NT where with no such burning we still lack any early mss for over 200 – 300 years! Heck, we’re still rejecting the use of the earliest mss for that of later conjecturally emended variant units, see the lack of use of P45 in any modern critical edition 😉

“The word Qur’an means recitation. The qira’at are different recitations.”

– Qur’an means recitation, qira’at are styles of the recitation. One of these words is singular and the other is plural. You’re an adult, I assume you know the difference. There is one Qur’an, but many Qira’at, there is a reason I write the “t” at the end of Qira’at, I’m trying to help you, but you’re too daft to distinguish between the two terms. One Qur’an, many Qira’at.

“You cannot say there is one recitation and many recitations at the same time. There are many versions of the Qur’an.”

– Style != Version. Qira’at != “many Qur’ans”. There is one Qur’an, but many Qira’at. This is not complicated. You do not seem to understand the difference because as demonstrated you think:

Qur’an = Ahruf = Qira’at.

Which is wrong. Unless you can demonstrate that you understand these are different terms, describing different things, you are merely demonstrating to me that you are uneducated, unqualified and ignorant on this topic of discussion.

Samuel Green writes:
> You are irrelevant. Personal copies are meant for personal consumption.

Wrong: The hadiths are clear that the companions used these manuscripts to teach their students. This is what caused the arguments. I reference this in my article. They were not for personal use.

> So your statement that they “are not counted as authentic” is completely fictitious.

Islamic scholars record up to 50 different qira’at.
(Al-Nadim, The Fihrist of al-Nadim – A Tenth Century survey of Muslim Culture, New York: Columbia University Press, 1970, pp. 63-71. Also, Ibn al-JazarT, Nashr, vol. 1, pp. 34—7, cited from, Intisar A. Rabb, “Non-Canonical Readings of the Qur’an: Recognitition and Authenticity (the Himsi Reading)”, Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 2006, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 124 footnote 114. And Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan, United Kingdom: Al-Hidaayah, 1999, pp. 191-192.

No one accepts all of these versions as authentic, some are accepted and others are rejected. They are judged in the same way a hadith is judged for authenticity. The gradings are: sahih (authentic), shadh (irregular), da’eef (weak) and baatil (false).[3] In this way the Qur’an is the same as the Hadith.

> Lastly, these variants in recitation existed in parallel with each other, for their to be harmonization there needed to be divergence and then convergence, not parallel transmission via stemmatics. Ergo, you’re wrong again.

They have to be parallel in order to be harmonized.

> – Wrong, we have texts that pre-date the alleged rescension with DAM 01 – 27, in fact you quote Sadeghi’s paper in which he specifically mentions this and is met with agreement.

Yes, and these text show major variants.

The main significance of the San’a 1 (Standford 07) manuscript is that its lower text does not belong to this Utmanic textual tradition. In this sense, it is “non-Utmanic.” It belongs to some other textual tradition which is designated here as C-1. (Behnam Sadeghi and Uwe Bergmann, “The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qur’an of the Prophet”, Arabica 57, 2010, p. 344)

> – Qur’an means recitation, qira’at are styles of the recitation.

Nonsense, just read them, they have nothing to do with style, the words are simply constructed differently.

Samuel Green writes:

You claim> Open any Arabic website, it is normal to write without using diacritical marks. Open any NT papyri pre-4th century, none of them have diacritical marks (breathings/ polytonic miniscule koine). By your own standards, it would mean the earliest NT writings were vague and could not be read.

Here is an Islamic scholar on this subject.

The (Arabic) script used in the seventh century, i.e. during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, consisted of very basic symbols, which expressed on the consonantal structure of a word, and even that with much ambiguity. While today letters such as baa, taa, thaa, yaa, are easily distinguished by points, this was not so in the early days and all these letters used to be written with a straight line. … When more and more Muslims of non-Arab origin and also many ignorant Arabs studied the Qur’an, faulty pronunciation and wrong readings began to increase. It is related that at the time of Du’ali (d. 69H/638) someone in Basra read the following aya from the Qur’an in a faulty way, which changed the meaning completely:

That God and his apostle dissolve obligations with the pagans (9:3)

That God dissolves obligations with the pagans and the apostle.

This mistake occurred through wrongly reading rasulihi in place of rasuluhu, which could not be distinguished from the written text, because there were no signs or accents indicating the correct pronunciation. Unless someone had memorised the correct version he could out of ignorance easily commit such a mistake. (Von Denffer, `Ulum Al-Qur’an – An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an, pp. 57-58)

Ijaz ahmed writes:
Isn’t that book almost two decades old? I’m pretty sure Deroche disagrees on the scripts used as does Sadeghi. So please cite anything from 2010-2014 please. Try to keep up, old man.

Ijaz Ahmed writes:
“Wrong: The hadiths are clear that the companions used these manuscripts to teach their students. This is what caused the arguments. I reference this in my article. They were not for personal use.”

The recitations caused the differences, that is what I see in your article, and this can be explained by a companion learning one qira’at and not learning another, which was often the case. Not all the Qurra recite all the qira’at. some specialize only in one.

“> So your statement that they “are not counted as authentic” is completely fictitious.
Islamic scholars record up to 50 different qira’at.
(Al-Nadim, The Fihrist of al-Nadim – A Tenth Century survey of Muslim Culture, New York: Columbia University Press, 1970, pp. 63-71. Also, Ibn al-JazarT, Nashr, vol. 1, pp. 34—7, cited from, Intisar A. Rabb, “Non-Canonical Readings of the Qur’an: Recognitition and Authenticity (the Himsi Reading)”, Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 2006, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 124 footnote 114. And Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan, United Kingdom: Al-Hidaayah, 1999, pp. 191-192.

No one accepts all of these versions as authentic, some are accepted and others are rejected. They are judged in the same way a hadith is judged for authenticity. The gradings are: sahih (authentic), shadh (irregular), da’eef (weak) and baatil (false).[3] In this way the Qur’an is the same as the Hadith.”

– THANK YOU. You’re again confusing Qira’at with Ahruf. My statement that they are not counted as authentic, refers to AHRUF not Qira’at. You’ve confused the two. Thank you for demonstrating that you CANNOT and DO NOT know the difference between the two. One is not the other, one comes from the other.

“They have to be parallel in order to be harmonized.”

– You may need to check that. Harmonizing means joining together, a convergence. How can it be parallel in transmission, yet harmonized/ converged? Either you don’t know what the words mean, or you’re making it up as you go along.

“> – Wrong, we have texts that pre-date the alleged rescension with DAM 01 – 27, in fact you quote Sadeghi’s paper in which he specifically mentions this and is met with agreement.

Yes, and these text show major variants.

The main significance of the San’a 1 (Standford 07) manuscript is that its lower text does not belong to this Utmanic textual tradition. In this sense, it is “non-Utmanic.” It belongs to some other textual tradition which is designated here as C-1. (Behnam Sadeghi and Uwe Bergmann, “The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qur’an of the Prophet”, Arabica 57, 2010, p. 344)”

– Where does that quote say there are major variants? You do realise I own that paper and have cited it many times. The textual tradition, i.e. the orthography is different. Mostly due to the use of hatta and ‘ala, which we find in the Topkapi codex, see Atakulic’s paper on this. You need to study more.

“> – Qur’an means recitation, qira’at are styles of the recitation.

Nonsense, just read them, they have nothing to do with style, the words are simply constructed differently.”

How Qira’at and Qur’an are two different words, they refer to two different things. One is from the other. Please learn what words mean before you use them. It’s like saying every codex is a canon, and that codex means canon. You are confused and very wrong.

Ijaz Ahmed writes:
I just checked the publishing date of Von Deffer’s book, it’s 1983. We are in 2015. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sadeghi, Bergmann, Goudarzi, Deroche, all now agree the text was sensible and could be read, with even Sadeghi proposing diacritical marks in DAM. Guess you didn’t want to quote where he proposed that in the same paper and provided MSS evidence for it, ya? 😉

Lastly, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, none of these in their early forms had diacritical marks. Just as with today, if you don’t understand how to read the text, you can’t. It had to be learned. So there is no issue here. If you are arguing that the lack of diacritical marks is an issue, then you need to be consistent and accept that NOT A SINGLE NT PAPYRI from before the 4/5th century could be read as they were in majuscule scriptio continua koine and had no vowels. Be consistent. If you can’t accept that (and you are factually wrong btw), then you are willingly lying. According to you, they were teaching people to read from their personal codices, how could they teach and read them if they lacked diacritical marks…? Clearly they had a system, as we do in MSA and do not need diacritical marks.

Ergo, you’re wrong and you’ve been proven wrong by PBC/ proof by contradiction. The onus is now on you to practically qualify your point, given that you have contradicted yourself.