Questions about Jesus and Islam

[SteveB]

Ok.
I may not say this completely accurately, so please bear with me.
According to the Quran, Allah does not have a son. 4:171, 6:101, 17:111, 23:91
According to the bible, YHVH (God's name) does have a son. John 3:16-17

Assuming Allah is really God, it seems to me that Allah is a different god than YHVH.
Common sense would dictate that the same person can't have a son, and not have a son simultaneously.

According to the Quran, Jesus did not die when he was crucified. Rather, he lay in what apparently was a coma for 3 days, and then woke back up. So he couldn't have been resurrected.

30 Verses of the Holy Quran which prove the Natural Death of Jesus Christ (as)

The problem here is that Jesus told his disciples several times that he would be betrayed, crucified and killed, and then on the third day he will rise again from the dead. Matthew 16:21 , 17:22-23, 20:18-19, 26:2; Mark 9:31, 10:33-34, 18:31-33,
He said these things before it happened.

Then, according to the Quran, Jesus is a prophet of Allah.

So...

My question here is....

If Jesus really is a prophet of Allah, and everything that we read in the Quran is true, then it seems like there's a problem.

I thought prophets were honest people who didn't lie.

If the Quran is true, then Jesus lied about his death, and resurrection.

Which means that he can't have been a true prophet of Allah.

Which then tells me that there is a contradiction in the Quran.

Allah claims that Jesus is his prophet.

Another thing that I find troubling about the lack of Jesus dying...

There were two distinct groups of people involved in his crucifixion.

1- the Romans. They were a military force of exceedingly great skill in the craft of war.
And in punishing criminals for their crimes.

2- the Jewish leaders. They too were quite skilled in the craft of death.

The Romans were trained in killing people. It wasn't a problem for them. They stabbed people with swords, and spears, and if there was any doubt, they'd do it again.
The crucifixion was an exceedingly gruesome event.
First, the criminal was beaten, with a cat of 9 tails whip.
This whip was made with multiple straps of leather, which had embedded glass and metal pieces. The idea was to dig deep into the flesh, and tear it away from the body.
In Isaiah 53, we read that his appearance was so marred that he was no longer recognized as a man.

The brutality of his beating was so horrendous that the soldiers who were with him commanded a man to carry his cross. If the beating wasn't bad, they never would have done that.

Then, once they reached the hilltop, they nailed him to the cross.
Following several hours of excruciating pain, they decided it was time to make sure that all 3 of the people who were being crucified were dead.
So, 2 of them, their legs were shattered by the soldiers who were tasked to kill them.
Then, the other soldier went to make sure Jesus was dead, and noticed that he was already dead. So to make sure, he stabbed him with the spear. Common military practice would have dictated that he be stabbed in the heart. Removing all possibilities of a mistaken death. It's noted in the gospel that he bled out, blood and water. Anyone acquainted with medical science knows that blood separates into plasma and red cells, making it appear to be blood and water.

Medical views on the death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ

The death of Jesus Christ remains a pivotal moment in world history and a symbol of love, mercy, and courage across the globe. Yet for centuries, the manner of Jesus’ death has remained a subject of controversy in academic and medical circles. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Jewish leaders killed animals for a living. Their entire worship structure was all about killing animals. So, they were skilled at knowing what death looked like.

As such, they would have only stayed long enough to verify that he was in fact dead! A rather curious thing about this is that they were so concerned about it they paid for a 3 day 24/7 guard, which would ensure that nobody stole the body.
The next element of this is that the guard was a group of 16 soldiers. Known as a quaternion. Two to four soldiers would keep watch in 2 hour intervals to ensure nobody ever lost it, and fell asleep due to exhaustion.

Since both major parties were extremely skilled in the craft of death, I have found myself wondering why it should be believed that Jesus didn't actually die.

 

[akay]

Christ was not crucified



Your scripture in which you believe says that the disciples (followers of the Messiah) did not see the crucifixion; rather on that day they were fleeing and hiding from their enemies, so how could they be eyewitnesses to something that they did not see?



We will quote from your scripture and the words of your scholars words to prove that:



Mark says:



“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome.



In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there”



Mark 15:40-41.



Matthew says something similar (Matthew 27:55-56).









So, according to what your scripture says, none of the disciples of the Messiah were present at the crucifixion at all; rather those who were present were some of the women, although the Gospels differ as to their number and identity.







This is not applicable in the case of the crucifixion, as we have explained above. None of the followers of the Messiah were present at the crucifixion, apart from a few women, and some reports in the Gospels even doubt that they were there. This doubt comes from Christian scholars themselves.



If no one was present at the crucifixion except a small number of women, who stood some distance away and watched from afar, this did not give them the opportunity to verify or be certain who the person was who was being crucified. Moreover, some of his enemies crucified the look-alike, thinking it was the Messiah. Therefore it is not valid to say, after that, that the crucifixion of the Messiah was narrated via “recurring testimony”.





Luke says:



“But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things”



[Luke 23:49].



John says:



“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene”



[John 19:23].



John Fenton says: The disciples fled when Jesus was arrested, and even though Peter had followed him from afar to the courtyard of the high priest, we do not hear anything more about him, after he denied Jesus.



Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us that the witnesses to the crucifixion were women who had followed Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem; they saw his burial and discovered the tomb empty on the Sunday morning, and they met Jesus after his resurrection.



The scholars commented on what John said about Mary, the mother of the Messiah, being present at the cross by saying: That is not possible at all, that the relatives and friends of Jesus would be allowed to stand near the cross.



Similarly, the Encyclopaedia Britannica says, commenting on the differences in the gospels concerning those who witnessed the crucifixion: We find in the (three) synoptic Gospels that only the women followed Jesus, and that the list which was written very carefully and in precise detail did not include his mother – and that they were watching from afar.



But in John, we find that his mother Mary stood with the two other Marys and the “beloved disciple” beneath the cross, and from that time, the beloved disciple took this story to his close friends.



At the same time, his mother does not appear in Jerusalem – according to the ancient texts – except just before the feast of Pentecost, when she is accompanied by his brothers (Acts 1:14).



End quote from Munaazarah bayna al-Islam wa’n-Nasraaniyyah [Debate between Islam and Christianity] (p. 107).



https://islamqa.info/en/answers/224199/the-crucifixion-of-the-messiah-between-islam-and-christianity

Was Jesus (pbuh) Really Crucified? - Dr Zakir Naik​

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

90 Verses That Say: Jesus is Not God Nor the Literal Son of God

https://thedeenshow.com/90-verses-that-say-jesus-is-not-god-nor-the-literal-son-of-god/

Christ is the Messenger of God

Jesus (pbuh) is not God but a Messenger of God - Dr Zakir Naik​

 

[SteveB]

Christ was not crucified



Your scripture in which you believe says that the disciples (followers of the Messiah) did not see the crucifixion; rather on that day they were fleeing and hiding from their enemies, so how could they be eyewitnesses to something that they did not see?



We will quote from your scripture and the words of your scholars words to prove that:



Mark says:



“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome.



In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there”



Mark 15:40-41.



Matthew says something similar (Matthew 27:55-56).









So, according to what your scripture says, none of the disciples of the Messiah were present at the crucifixion at all; rather those who were present were some of the women, although the Gospels differ as to their number and identity.







This is not applicable in the case of the crucifixion, as we have explained above. None of the followers of the Messiah were present at the crucifixion, apart from a few women, and some reports in the Gospels even doubt that they were there. This doubt comes from Christian scholars themselves.



If no one was present at the crucifixion except a small number of women, who stood some distance away and watched from afar, this did not give them the opportunity to verify or be certain who the person was who was being crucified. Moreover, some of his enemies crucified the look-alike, thinking it was the Messiah. Therefore it is not valid to say, after that, that the crucifixion of the Messiah was narrated via “recurring testimony”.





Luke says:



“But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things”



[Luke 23:49].



John says:



“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene”



[John 19:23].



John Fenton says: The disciples fled when Jesus was arrested, and even though Peter had followed him from afar to the courtyard of the high priest, we do not hear anything more about him, after he denied Jesus.



Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us that the witnesses to the crucifixion were women who had followed Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem; they saw his burial and discovered the tomb empty on the Sunday morning, and they met Jesus after his resurrection.



The scholars commented on what John said about Mary, the mother of the Messiah, being present at the cross by saying: That is not possible at all, that the relatives and friends of Jesus would be allowed to stand near the cross.



Similarly, the Encyclopaedia Britannica says, commenting on the differences in the gospels concerning those who witnessed the crucifixion: We find in the (three) synoptic Gospels that only the women followed Jesus, and that the list which was written very carefully and in precise detail did not include his mother – and that they were watching from afar.



But in John, we find that his mother Mary stood with the two other Marys and the “beloved disciple” beneath the cross, and from that time, the beloved disciple took this story to his close friends.



At the same time, his mother does not appear in Jerusalem – according to the ancient texts – except just before the feast of Pentecost, when she is accompanied by his brothers (Acts 1:14).



End quote from Munaazarah bayna al-Islam wa’n-Nasraaniyyah [Debate between Islam and Christianity] (p. 107).



https://islamqa.info/en/answers/224199/the-crucifixion-of-the-messiah-between-islam-and-christianity

Was Jesus (pbuh) Really Crucified? - Dr Zakir Naik​

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

90 Verses That Say: Jesus is Not God Nor the Literal Son of God

https://thedeenshow.com/90-verses-that-say-jesus-is-not-god-nor-the-literal-son-of-god/

Christ is the Messenger of God

Jesus (pbuh) is not God but a Messenger of God - Dr Zakir Naik​

So this whole Jesus thing is a lie?

If that's the case then it's pretty clear that Islam is promoting a false messenger, and that would make Allah a liar.

 

[akay]

Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him was not a liar
But the Bible has been corrupted

Jesus did not write the bible that was revealed by God. Not even was it written immediately after his departure. He did not order or desire at any time in his life to write anything on his behalf. Therefore, the Bible which is in circulation today is not a representation of Jesus' teachings.

Out of the total of 27 Books of the New Testament, more than half is authored by Paul. As opposed to Paul, the Master has not written a single word of the twenty-seven books. If you can lay your hands on what is called "'A Red Letter Bible," you will find every word alleged to have been uttered by Jesus - in red ink and the rest in normal black ink. Don't be shocked to find that in this so called Gospel of Jesus, over ninety percent of the 27 Books of the New Testament is printed in black ink!



Why such variance in viewpoints? To begin with, different theological camps disagree on which books should be included in the Bible. One camp’s apocrypha is another’s scripture. Secondly, even among those books that have been canonized, the many variant source texts lack uniformity. This lack of uniformity is so ubiquitous that The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.”

Not one sentence? We can’t trust a single sentence of the Bible? Hard to believe.
Maybe

The fact is that there are over 5700 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament Furthermore, “no two of these manuscripts are exactly alike in all their particulars…. And some of these differences are significant.” Factor in roughly ten thousand manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, add the many other ancient variants (i.e., Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Nubian, Gothic, Slavonic), and what do we have?
A lot of manuscripts

A lot of manuscripts that fail to correspond in places and not infrequently contradict one another. Scholars estimate the number of manuscript variants in the hundreds of thousands, some estimating as high as 400,000] In Bart D. Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”


So what, if anything, did Jesus’ disciples have to do with authoring the gospels? Little or nothing, so far as we know. But we have no reason to believe they authored any of the books of the Bible. To begin with, let us remember Mark was a secretary to Peter, and Luke a companion to Paul. The verses of Luke 6:14-16 and Matthew 10:2-4 catalogue the twelve disciples, and although these lists differ over two names, Mark and Luke don’t make either list. So only Matthew and John were true disciples. But all the same, modern scholars pretty much disqualify them as authors anyway.


New Testament of the Bible regarding Jesus by Yusha ...

 

[SteveB]

Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him was not a liar
But the Bible has been corrupted

Ok.
How do you know which parts have been corrupted?
Is there a definitive list of the corrupted parts, or is this just a matter of generic corruptions?

Jesus did not write the bible that was revealed by God.

So, Allah wasn't actually able to guarantee that the bible is secure?
Seems like Allah's pretty inept if that's the case.

Not even was it written immediately after his departure. He did not order or desire at any time in his life to write anything on his behalf. Therefore, the Bible which is in circulation today is not a representation of Jesus' teachings.

Sounds like your god has a serious problem with ensuring that his writings are kept true.
If that's the case, then how can we know that the Quran is pure too?

Out of the total of 27 Books of the New Testament, more than half is authored by Paul.

Yep. 13 letters.

As opposed to Paul, the Master has not written a single word of the twenty-seven books.

Ok.

If you can lay your hands on what is called "'A Red Letter Bible," you will find every word alleged to have been uttered by Jesus - in red ink and the rest in normal black ink. Don't be shocked to find that in this so called Gospel of Jesus, over ninety percent of the 27 Books of the New Testament is printed in black ink!

And?
In several places, Jesus referred to himself as the I AM, of Moses, in Exodus.

So profound were the uses, that his hearers tried killing him, because he referred to himself as God.

He further referred to himself as the Son of God. They didn't take too kindly to that one either.

Why such variance in viewpoints? To begin with, different theological camps disagree on which books should be included in the Bible.

Have you ever actually studied the Nicean Council and the reasons why it was convened, or are you just going off what others told you?

One camp’s apocrypha is another’s scripture.

So the apocrypha is pure scripture, but scripture has been corrupted?

Secondly, even among those books that have been canonized, the many variant source texts lack uniformity.

And those are?
Do you have resources to corroborate this?

This lack of uniformity is so ubiquitous that The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.”

Do you have a source for this that I can corroborate?

Not one sentence? We can’t trust a single sentence of the Bible? Hard to believe.
Maybe

You're claiming that the bible has been corrupted. So, how do you know which parts are valid, and which are corrupt?
Seems like unless there's a definitive list, it's not possible to know what's reliable or not.

The fact is that there are over 5700 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament Furthermore, “no two of these manuscripts are exactly alike in all their particulars…. And some of these differences are significant.” Factor in roughly ten thousand manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, add the many other ancient variants (i.e., Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Nubian, Gothic, Slavonic), and what do we have?
A lot of manuscripts

You've placed quotes around your comment, so what's your source?
Is it readily available for research?

A lot of manuscripts that fail to correspond in places and not infrequently contradict one another. Scholars estimate the number of manuscript variants in the hundreds of thousands, some estimating as high as 400,000] In Bart D. Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”

This is rather curious.
Ever heard of Mike Licona?
He's a Greek scholar and has stated that he's quite satisfied that the bible is a reliable document, and not as corrupt as you want it to be.

Michael R. Licona: books, biography, latest update

Follow Michael R. Licona and explore their bibliography from Amazon.com's Michael R. Licona Author Page.

www.amazon.com

3 Reasons Why the Bible Can Be Trusted - Lifeway Research

One of the many questions raised when I doubted my faith was, “Why do I trust the Bible?”

research.lifeway.com

Is the Bible reliable? | GotQuestions.org

Is the Bible reliable? Is the Bible trustworthy? Can I truly rely on what the Bible says?

www.gotquestions.org

Research only confirms the reliability of the Bible

Is there really such a long gap between when the Bible was written and the earliest copies, and does it matter? A recent piece of research encourages us to have more confidence in the biblical text than that.

www.christiantoday.com

The Top Ten Attacks Against the Bible’s Historical Reliability — And How to Answer Them - Shepherds Theological Seminary

Published April 18, 2020 By Tim M. Sigler, PhD Many skeptics have challenged that the Scriptures merely provide modern readers with myths and literary fictions from the ancient world. Upon this basis, they deny the Bible’s truth claims and reject the need for personal faith....

shepherds.edu

So what, if anything, did Jesus’ disciples have to do with authoring the gospels? Little or nothing, so far as we know. But we have no reason to believe they authored any of the books of the Bible. To begin with, let us remember Mark was a secretary to Peter, and Luke a companion to Paul. The verses of Luke 6:14-16 and Matthew 10:2-4 catalogue the twelve disciples, and although these lists differ over two names, Mark and Luke don’t make either list. So only Matthew and John were true disciples. But all the same, modern scholars pretty much disqualify them as authors anyway.


New Testament of the Bible regarding Jesus by Yusha ...

HAVE YOU WONDERED: Is the Bible historically accurate?

Modern archaeology has helped us realize that the Bible is historically accurate even in the smallest of details. There have been thousands of archaeological discoveries in the past century that supp…

www.thedestinlog.com

My search parameters are

Historical reliability of the Bible

scholarly reliability of the bible


I encourage you to do your own research.

That is what Jesus followers are enjoined to do.

Joh 7:16-18 WEB 16 Jesus therefore answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God or if I am speaking from myself. 18 He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

Act 17:11 WEB Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

1Th 5:21-22 WEB 21 Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.

 

[akay]

1-

The damaged parts of the Bible contradict the law of the ancient prophets and the Qur’an religiously, historically and scientifically


You will be shocked when you watch this video

Debate: Dr. Zakir Naik vs. Dr William Campbell - The Quran and the Bible in the Light of Science​

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

2-

Previous prophets were sent to a particular group of people and their message was supposed to be followed for a particular time period. Since previous revelations were time-bound, God did not preserve them Himself.

the Quran cannot be compared with the previous Scriptures. The Quran is unique in many aspects. It is the final revelation to mankind. Previous scriptures were sent to their respective people only.

The Quran is universal.

So God promised to protect the Quran

God says in the Qur’an
(9) Indeed, it is We who sent down the message [i.e., the Qur’ān], and indeed, We will be its guardian.




Muslims accept the original unaltered Torah (as revealed to Prophet Moses, peace be upon him). Muslims also accept the original unaltered Bible (as revealed to Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him). These original scriptures were revealed by God (Allah).

none of these scriptures exist today in their original form or in their entirety.



\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\




3-

This is your opinion, not the opinion of the scholars who confirmed the authenticity of the Qur’an with scientific and historical evidence



The Quran has been memorized
Because God saved the Quran from changing
The predicate is connected
And the writers of the Koran are known generation after generationThe Holy Qur’an was written directly
and hadith

From the mouth of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him
so
The Quran was written by the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him

And the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was aliveThere were also known eyewitnesses
So
The original message is fully preserved until nowOn the contrary
The Bible was not recorded directly

But
After 300 years after the Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him

Bible verses are written down

Without trustworthy witnesses

Because they were not present at the time of Jesus, peace be upon him

Even the Old Testament was written down
One thousand years after the death of the Prophet moses peace be upon him






When do you plan to stop bearing false witness?



We all know the Quran today is exactly as it was revealed.

We literally have 1400 year old Quran's to verify it, not to mention its always been an oral tradition. Millions today can recite the Quran cover to cover from MEMORY and it has always been this way.

I frequently point out all those who hate Islam today can't find the ability to change a single letter. Look at China, a nation of a BILLION. They have went on record saying they will write there own Quran and this was how many years ago? Where is it?

And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful. (2:23 Quran)

1400 years and many haters of Islam have lived and died. Where is their Quran? Why do we only have one Quran today?
Why has EVERY generation failed to produce one surah


To this day there is one Quran. In the original language that it was revealed in.



Indeed God has claimed in the Quran kareem that He himself protects it and we see the proof of this today.








Compare this to the 20,000 changes!! in Bibles today. So many you yourself have to select specific versions.



Why are we not surprised? After all, even the gospel authors are unknown. In fact, they’re anonymous. Biblical scholars rarely, if ever, ascribe gospel authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. As Ehrman tells us, “Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century. Graham Stanton affirms, “The gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous. The familiar headings which give the name of an author (‘The Gospel according to …’)



The Bible has been changed and changed and mistranslation are 2 completely different things. Don't the 10 commandments forbid lying? Why is it that so many Christians try to deceive? Honestly it is changed even today as we live and breathe.

The truth is you worship a man who is constantly referred to as prophet in your book. A man who literally cried to God to save him in your book. A man who literally worshiped God in your book.



see here



Oldest version of the Quran at the University of Birmingham - YouTube

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

[akay]

4-

In fact, entire books of the Bible were forgedThis doesn’t mean their content is necessarily wrong, but it certainly doesn’t mean it’s right. So which books were forged? Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude—a whopping nine of the twenty-seven New Testament books and epistles—are to one degree or another suspect.




Many church fathers, notably Origin, Jerome, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem, denied the Apocrypha’s inspiration and canonicity. The early Jews of Palestine, including the Jewish Council of Jamnia which met in A.D. 90, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Also, Philo, a Jewish teacher who lived in the first century, quoted from virtually every Old Testament canonical book, but never once quoted from the Apocrypha.

At the time of the compiling of the Canon of Scripture, at the Council of Nicea, the books of the Apocrypha were not known in Hebrew,

There are historical errors in the Apocrypha. John Ankerberg and John Weldon summarize a few of these:

Tobit contains certain historical and geographical errors such as the assumption that
Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (1:15) instead of Sargon II, and that Nineveh
was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (14:5) instead of by Nabopolassar
and Cyazares….Judith cannot possible be historical because of the glaring errors it
contains….[In 2 Maccabees] there are also numerous disarrangements and discrepancies
in chronological, historical, and numerical matters in the book, reflecting ignorance or
confusion. [John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Protestants and Catholics:
Do They Now Agree? p.59]


that the apocryphal books contain many historical errors?


The Apocrypha contains a number of unbiblical doctrines, such as the doctrine of the mass (2 Maccabees 12:42-45; compare with Hebrews 7:27), the notion that the world was created out of preexistent matter (Wisdom of Solomon; compare with Genesis 1 and Psalm 33:9), the idea that giving alms and other works can make an atonement for sin (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 3:3; 3:30; 5:5; 20:28; 35:1-4; 45:16; 45:23; compare with Romans 3:20), the invocation and intercession of the saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; Baruch 3:4; compare with Matthew 6:9), the worship of angels (Tobit 12:12; compare with Colossians 2:18), purgatory and the redemption of souls after death (2 Maccabees 12:42,45; compare with Hebrews 9:27).

How the Bible was corrupted by Dr. Bart Ehrman YouTube
‫كيف تم تحريف الانجيل الدكتور بارت ايرمان‎ YouTube

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Christ is the son of God in the figurative sense only because all the prophets are sons of God

5-


This is the testimony of Peter, when he said to the Jews:

[22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. ]. Acts of the Apostles 2-22

Are Christians today more knowledgeable than Peter, the disciple of Christ, who saw him, lived with him, lived with him, and knew him well!



Christ Himself said to the Jews: In the same Gospel: [40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God.]. John 8-40.


And this text alone is sufficient for any sane person who seeks the truth to undermine in his mind the idea of the alleged divinity of Christ. Christ himself says to the Jews: I am just a person who conveyed to you the words of God. A word from which it is impossible to understand except one meaning,

as in John 17-3 when he was addressing the Father, saying: [ 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. ].


Whoever wants to obtain eternal life in the time of Christ must know and believe that the true God is God, and know and believe that this true God sent Jesus Christ as a prophet only.


Jesus goes further on proving the point that he is a prophet the messiah when he asks: do you believe this? The lady responds in the affirmative, as any true believer back then should. Every true believer back then must have believed in Jesus because he was a prophet, and if you did not, then the wrath of God would be upon you.

You claim Jesus is God. You cannot produce a single claim and clarification by Jesus himself where he said: " I am God" you cannot.
The Bible has a problem. It cannot make up its mind whether Jesus is God or not. Christians happily point to verses where Jesus supposedly says "I and the Father are one", but then when someone points out that Jesus also said "I am going to your God and my God", they dismiss it as irrelevant and say things like "well Jesus is both man and God and also his son". For Muslims, this is the ultimate heresy. It shows that the Bible is the work of multiple hands. Jesus was not the liar. The people who tried to speak in his name and created a new ideology were the liars.




then the Jews picked up stones to stone him because they understood him to mean that he is claiming to be God. It is only when you read the passage to see what comes before and after this verse that you will realise that the Jews misunderstood what Jesus was saying.



the Jews picked up stones to stone him (verse 31). Jesus could not understand their behaviour, because he had said nothing wrong. So he asked them what he had done wrong to make them want to stone him (verse 32). They replied that Jesus had committed blasphemy since he was only a man yet he claimed to be God (verse 33).

But it is clear from the Bible passage above that Jesus did not claim to be God. He only claimed to be the Christ (verse 25). When did he say he was God? They were deliberately misquoting Jesus and putting words in his mouth which they will try to use later as false evidence against him so they could have an excuse to kill him.

 

[sk0rpi0n]

According to the bible, YHVH (God's name) does have a son. John 3:16-17

Assuming Allah is really God, it seems to me that Allah is a different god than YHVH.
Common sense would dictate that the same person can't have a son, and not have a son simultaneously.

According to the Bible, God has more than 1 son. David, Solomon, Adam, all Israelites.

Common sense would dictate that the same person cant have 1 son and multiple sons simultaneously.

The question is if you believe Jesus was God's LITERAL son, as in, God's offspring. That is a separate issue altogether.

According to the Quran, Jesus did not die when he was crucified. Rather, he lay in what apparently was a coma for 3 days, and then woke back up. So he couldn't have been resurrected.

That's the "swoon theory", which is what the Ahmadiyyas believe regarding the crucifixion.

The Quran's account of the crucifixion can be interpreted in a way that aligns with the Bible's narrative. He was nailed to the cross, but did not die as a result of it because God took away his soul, so he was not technically crucified. The people then buried the lifeless body of Jesus, but once he was placed in the tomb, God returned Jesus' soul to his body and Jesus came back to life and ascended. Problem solved.

If Jesus really is a prophet of Allah, and everything that we read in the Quran is true, then it seems like there's a problem.

I thought prophets were honest people who didn't lie.

If the Quran is true, then Jesus lied about his death, and resurrection.

Well, if you insist that Jesus did die from the crucifixion, then it implies that Jesus lied in the Bible. Remember, he said "no man can take my life but I lay it down on my own"? So if he died of crucifixion, then it follows that men took his life.

Instead it's better to understand it as follows:

1. Jesus was nailed to the cross.
2. God took away his soul.
3. The people buried Jesus' lifeless body.
4. God returned Jesus' soul.
5. Jesus was resurrected.

 

[akay]

God therefore affirms that He raised His servant JESUS to heaven after having recalled his soul to its sleep - without it having died according to the most just and decisive opinion - to thus remove it from the hands of the Jews who had denounced to one of the ungodly kings of the time. The king ordered the killing of Jesus and crucifixion him

The soldiers surrounded him in a house in Jerusalem on a Friday evening. When they were about to enter, the appearance of JESUS was given to one of his disciples who were with him, while JESUS was lifted by a slit of this house towards the sky, under the gaze of all the occupants. of the House. The soldiers then entered and took away the young man who had taken on the appearance of JESUS, believing that they had taken the latter. They crucified him and put a crown of thorns on his head to humiliate him. Most Christians, of course, had not witnessed the elevation of JESUS to Heaven, and they believed in the thesis of the Jews on the crucifixion,

Judah
one of the disciples of the prophet JESUS
is considered a traitor because he told enemies of Christ about his place To kill the Prophet JESUS, peace be upon him
Judah He deserved to be crucified in place of the Prophet JESUS peace be upon him

Almighty God gave him the form of JESUS, peace be upon him, so they thought so, so they took him, crucified and killed him.

Jesus Christ was neither killed nor was he crucified, as alleged by the Christians and the Jews, but that he was alive! because:

1. Jesus was reluctant to die! He had worked out a strategy of defence to repel the Jews. Because he wanted to remain alive!

2. He beseeched God for help. With strong crying and tears for God Almighty to keep him alive!

3. God ‘heard’ his prayers which means that God accepted his prayers to keep him alive!

4. An angel of god came to strengthen him: In the hope and belief that God will save him alive!

5. Pilate finds Jesus not guilty! Good reason to keep Jesus alive!

6. Pilates wife shown a dream in which she was told that - ‘No harm should come to this just man.’ In other words that he should be saved alive!

7. Supposed to be on the cross for only three hours. According to the system in vogue, no man could die by crucifixion in so short a time which means that even if he was fastened to the cross - he was alive!



8. The other two - his ‘crossmates’ on their respective crosses were alive. So Jesus too, for the same period of time must be alive!

9. Encyclopedia biblica under article ‘cross’ - column 960 says: ‘When the spear was thrust - Jesus was alive!

10. ‘Forthwith’ came there out blood and water: ‘Forthwith’ means straightaway, immediately which was a sure sign that Jesus was alive!

11. Legs not broken - as a fulfilment of prophecy. ‘Legs’ can be of any use only if Jesus was alive!

12.Thunderstorm, earthquake, and darkening of the sun all within 3 hours! To disperse the sadistic mob to enable his ‘secret disciples’ to help, keep him alive!

13. Jews doubted his death: They suspected that he had escaped death on the cross - that he was alive!

14. Pilate ‘marvels’ to hear that Jesus was dead. He knew from experience that no man can die so soon by crucifixion. He suspected that Jesus was alive!

15. Big roomy chamber: Close at hand, and big and airy for willing hands to come to the rescue. Providence was out to keep Jesus alive!

16. Stone and ‘winding sheets’ had to be removed: Only necessary if Jesus was alive!

17. Report on winding sheets. German Scientists who carried out experiments on the ‘Shroud of Turin’ said that the heart of Jesus had not stopped functioning - that he was alive!

18. Ever in disguise! Disguise not necessary if Jesus was ‘resurrected’. Only necessary if he was alive!

19. Forbade Mary Magdalene to touch him ‘Touch me not’ for this reason that it would hurt; because he was alive!

20. ‘Not yet ascended unto my father’ In the language of the Jews, in the idiom of the Jews, he was saying, ‘I am not dead yet’, in other words, ‘I am alive!’

21. Mary Magdalene not afraid on recognising Jesus. Because she had seen signs of life before. She was looking for a Jesus who was alive!

22. Disciples petrified on seeing Jesus in the upper-room. All their knowledge about the ‘crucifixion’ was from hearsay, therefore, they could not believe that Jesus was alive!

23. Ate food again and again in his post ‘crucifixion’ appearances. Food only necessary if he was alive!

24. Never showed himself to his enemies. Because he had escaped death by the ‘skin of his teeth’. He was alive!

25. Took only short trips. Because he was not resurrected, not spiritualised, but alive!

26. Testimony of men around the tomb “Why seek ye the living among the dead?” (Luke 24:4-5) That he is not dead, but alive!

27. Testimony of angels “angels who had said that he was alive!” (Luke 24:23) Did not say, ‘resurrected’ but the actual word uttered by the angels was ‘Alive!’

28. Mary Magdalene testifies “they heard that he was alive, and had been seen by her, they believed not” (Mark 16-11).

Mary did not vouch for a spook, or ghost or spirit of Jesus but a Live Jesus. What they could not believe was that the Master was alive!

29. Dr. primrose testifies: That the ‘water and the blood’, when Jesus was lanced on the side, was on account of an upset in the nervous vessels because of the scourging by staves. Which was a sure sign that Jesus was alive!

30. Jesus had himself foretold that his miracle will be the miracle of Jonah! According to the Book of Jonah, Jonah was alive, when we expected him to be dead; similarly when we expect Jesus to be dead, he should be alive!

ahmed deedat-100% proof jesus was not crucified

 

[CrowCross]

According to the Bible, God has more than 1 son. David, Solomon, Adam, all Israelites.

Were they everlasting from eternity? That is have never NOT existed?

 

[akay]

Jesus was not eternal from eternity






The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge.
Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”




Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay”
Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless.



Because the Gospels are distorted, and Jesus did not say everything that John mentioned

The text does not specify the period that Jesus, peace be upon him, is supposed to have lived before Abraham, and there is no evidence that it is eternal. Therefore, there is never a faithful way to make this passage in John 8:58 proves the divinity of Christ



https://islamreigns.wordpress.com/20...aham-was-i-am/


Q&A Jesus:Before Abraham Was, I Am (John 8:58) - Sheikh
...
‪

 

[sk0rpi0n]

Were they everlasting from eternity? That is have never NOT existed?

Only God is everlasting from eternity. Jesus has a beginning. That's why he's completely absent in the OT but shows up much later in the New Testament.

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who by Myself spread out the earth, (Isaiah 44:24)

Since God stretched out the heavens ALONE and spread out the earth BY HIMSELF, it follows only the One God is everlasting from eternity.

 

[CrowCross]

Only God is everlasting from eternity. Jesus has a beginning. That's why he's completely absent in the OT but shows up much later in the New Testament.

Jesus...the pre-incarnate Jesus had no beginning....as you know He is eternal.

As far as being absent from the OT....Jesus was in the fiery furnace.

 

[sk0rpi0n]

Jesus...the pre-incarnate Jesus had no beginning....as you know He is eternal

You're just assuming that.

As far as being absent from the OT....Jesus was in the fiery furnace.

If that were true, he would have been mentioned by name in the OT. Or that would have been mentioned in the NT. But that is not so.

So Christians just arbitrarily assume that an angelic figure in an OT incident (like the fiery furnace) was actually Jesus. They're just reading Jesus back into the OT.

 

[CrowCross]

You're just assuming that.

Then you appear to be assuming that Jesus, the alpha and the omega...the creator of all things...had a beginning.

 

[Lee Magee]

Islam branched out from an earlier form of Christianity that mainstream Christianity came from, so some ideas are the same, some are different, but both are still very far removed from the original Abrahamic texts of the Old Testament.

 

[akay]

The Islamic belief about Jesus demystifies for us who the real Jesus was. Jesus in Islam was an extraordinary individual, chosen by God as a Prophet and sent to the Jewish people. He never preached that he himself was God or the actual son of God. He was miraculously born without a father, and he performed many amazing miracles such as healing the blind and the lepers and raising the dead – all by God’s permission. Muslims believe that Jesus will return before the day of Judgement to bring justice and peace to the world. This Islamic belief about Jesus is similar to the belief of some of the early Christians. In the Quran, God addresses the Christians about Jesus in the following way:

O People of the Book, do not commit excesses in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers and do not speak of a ‘Trinity’– stop [this], that is better for you– God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust. [4:171]



The Prophets of the Old Testament such as Abraham, Noah and Jonah never preached that God is part of a Trinity, and did not believe in Jesus as their saviour. Their message was simple: there is one God and He alone deserves your worship. It doesn’t make sense that God sent Prophets for thousands of years with the same essential message, and then all of a sudden he says he is in a Trinity and that you must believe in Jesus to be saved.

The truth is that Jesus preached the same message that the Prophets in the Old Testament preached. There is a passage in the Bible which really emphasizes his core message. A man came to Jesus and asked “Which is the first commandment of all?”Jesus answered, “The first of all the commandments is Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.’’[Mark 12:28-29]. So the greatest commandment, the most important belief according to Jesus is that God is one. If Jesus was God he would have said ‘I am God, worship me’, but he didn’t. He merely repeated a verse from the Old Testament confirming that God is One.

Islam is not just another religion. It is the same message preached by Moses, Jesus and Abraham. Islam literally means ‘submission to God’ and it teaches us to have a direct relationship with God. It reminds us that since God created us, no one should be worshipped except God alone. It also teaches that God is nothing like a human being or like anything that we can imagine. The concept of God is summarized in the Quran as:

“Say, He is God, the One. God, the Absolute. He does not give birth, nor was He born, and there is nothing like Him.” (Quran 112:1-4)[4]



DID JESUS (PBUH) CLAIM DIVINITY WHEN HE SAID: "I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA"? - DR ZAKIR NAIK

Did jesus say I am the alpha and omega

 

[Shilohsfoal]

Ok.
I may not say this completely accurately, so please bear with me.
According to the Quran, Allah does not have a son. 4:171, 6:101, 17:111, 23:91
According to the bible, YHVH (God's name) does have a son. John 3:16-17

Assuming Allah is really God, it seems to me that Allah is a different god than YHVH.
Common sense would dictate that the same person can't have a son, and not have a son simultaneously.

According to the Quran, Jesus did not die when he was crucified. Rather, he lay in what apparently was a coma for 3 days, and then woke back up. So he couldn't have been resurrected.

30 Verses of the Holy Quran which prove the Natural Death of Jesus Christ (as)

The problem here is that Jesus told his disciples several times that he would be betrayed, crucified and killed, and then on the third day he will rise again from the dead. Matthew 16:21 , 17:22-23, 20:18-19, 26:2; Mark 9:31, 10:33-34, 18:31-33,
He said these things before it happened.

Then, according to the Quran, Jesus is a prophet of Allah.

So...

My question here is....

If Jesus really is a prophet of Allah, and everything that we read in the Quran is true, then it seems like there's a problem.

I thought prophets were honest people who didn't lie.

If the Quran is true, then Jesus lied about his death, and resurrection.

Which means that he can't have been a true prophet of Allah.

Which then tells me that there is a contradiction in the Quran.

Allah claims that Jesus is his prophet.

Another thing that I find troubling about the lack of Jesus dying...

There were two distinct groups of people involved in his crucifixion.

1- the Romans. They were a military force of exceedingly great skill in the craft of war.
And in punishing criminals for their crimes.

2- the Jewish leaders. They too were quite skilled in the craft of death.

The Romans were trained in killing people. It wasn't a problem for them. They stabbed people with swords, and spears, and if there was any doubt, they'd do it again.
The crucifixion was an exceedingly gruesome event.
First, the criminal was beaten, with a cat of 9 tails whip.
This whip was made with multiple straps of leather, which had embedded glass and metal pieces. The idea was to dig deep into the flesh, and tear it away from the body.
In Isaiah 53, we read that his appearance was so marred that he was no longer recognized as a man.

The brutality of his beating was so horrendous that the soldiers who were with him commanded a man to carry his cross. If the beating wasn't bad, they never would have done that.

Then, once they reached the hilltop, they nailed him to the cross.
Following several hours of excruciating pain, they decided it was time to make sure that all 3 of the people who were being crucified were dead.
So, 2 of them, their legs were shattered by the soldiers who were tasked to kill them.
Then, the other soldier went to make sure Jesus was dead, and noticed that he was already dead. So to make sure, he stabbed him with the spear. Common military practice would have dictated that he be stabbed in the heart. Removing all possibilities of a mistaken death. It's noted in the gospel that he bled out, blood and water. Anyone acquainted with medical science knows that blood separates into plasma and red cells, making it appear to be blood and water.

Medical views on the death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ

The death of Jesus Christ remains a pivotal moment in world history and a symbol of love, mercy, and courage across the globe. Yet for centuries, the manner of Jesus’ death has remained a subject of controversy in academic and medical circles. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Jewish leaders killed animals for a living. Their entire worship structure was all about killing animals. So, they were skilled at knowing what death looked like.

As such, they would have only stayed long enough to verify that he was in fact dead! A rather curious thing about this is that they were so concerned about it they paid for a 3 day 24/7 guard, which would ensure that nobody stole the body.
The next element of this is that the guard was a group of 16 soldiers. Known as a quaternion. Two to four soldiers would keep watch in 2 hour intervals to ensure nobody ever lost it, and fell asleep due to exhaustion.

Since both major parties were extremely skilled in the craft of death, I have found myself wondering why it should be believed that Jesus didn't actually die.

Its amazing what God had done.He told Abraham if he would offer Isaac as a sacrifice that he would make his seed as the stars of heaven so great in number.And Abraham believed God and took Issac upon a mountain to sacrifice his son.
But Insted ,God had a different plan in mind and provided a sacrifice.His only begotten son.
There's a reason why all the Muslims are to be removed from the kingdom.Its because of disbelief.
There's been such a falling away in the kingdom it must needs to be cleansed.

 

[akay]

In Islam BOTH Isaac and Ishmael (peace be upon THEM) are blessed and it's therefore not really important who was to be sacrificed.
Trying to exclude one of the two from being blessed is the belief of the Jews and you Christians blindly accepted their corruption.
God is not some racist Jewish man in order to give precedence to people based upon their mothers!

Precedence is based upon righteousness (and both of them were righteous).



Ishmael or Isaac - Who Was To Be Sacrificed?

M. Why did Isma'il (Ishmael) and his mother Hajar (Hagar) leave Sarrah?

C. After Isaac was weaned, his mother Sarah saw Ishmael mocking him. After that, she didn't want Ishmael to be heir with her son Isaac: Genesis 21:8-10: "And the child grew, and was weaned, and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham: 'Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac."'

M. Isaac was about two years old when he was weaned. Ishmael was then sixteen years is the profile of a baby, not of a teenager. So Ishmael and his mother Hagar left Sarah long before Isaac was born. According to the Islamic version, Abraham took Ishmael and Hagar and made a new settlement in Makkah, called Paran in the Bible (Genesis 21:21), because of a divine instruction given to Abraham as a part of God's plan. Hagar ran seven times between two hills, Safa and Marwa, looking for water. This is the origin of one of the rituals that is performed during the pilgrimage to Makkah. The well of water mentioned in Genesis 21:19 is still present and is known as called Zamzam. Both Abraham and Ishmael later built the Ka'bah in Makkah. The spot where Abraham used to perform prayers near the Ka'bah is still present and is known as the Maqam Ibrahim, i.e., the Station of Abraham. During the pilgrimage, pilgrims in Makkah and Muslims all over the world commemorate the offering of Abraham and Ishmael by slaughtering cattle.

C. But the Bible mentions that Isaac was to be sacrificed.

M. The Islamic version states that the covenant between God, Abraham, and his only son Ishmael was made and sealed when Ishmael was supposed to be sacrificed. On the very same day, Abraham, Ishmael, and all the men of Abraham's household were circumcised. At that time, Isaac had not even born: Genesis 17:24-27: "And Abraham was ninety years old and nine when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

A year later, Isaac was born and circumcised when he was eight days old: Genesis 21:4-5: "And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him. And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him." So when the covenant was made and sealed (circumcision and sacrifice) Abraham was ninety-nine and Ishmael was thirteen. Isaac was born a year later, when Abraham was one hundred years old.

As you know, Kedar is a descendent of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13), and Ishmael is the the base for the Family Tree of Prophet Muhammad through Kedar. The followers of Ishmael, Prophet Muhammad and all Muslims, remain faithful until today to this covenant of circumcision. In their five daily prayers, Muslims include the praise of Abraham and his followers with the praise of Muhammad and his followers.

C. But in Genesis 22 it is mentioned that Isaac was to be sacrificed.

M. I know, but you will see the contradiction there. It is mentioned "shine only son Isaac." Shouldn't it be "shine only son Ishmael," when Ishmael was thirteen years old and Isaac had not even been born? When Isaac was born, Abraham had two sons. Because of chauvinism, the name of Ishmael was changed to Isaac in all of Genesis 22. But God has preserved the word "only" to show us what it should have been.

The words "I will multiply thy seed" in Genesis 22:17 was applied earlier to Ishmael in Genesis 16:10. Was not the whole of Genesis 22 applicable to Ishmael then? "I will make him a great nation" has been repeated twice for Ishmael in Genesis 17:20 and Genesis 16:10: "And the angel of the Lord said unto her [Hager]: 'I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude."'

Genesis 17:20: "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. Twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation."

Genesis 21:13: "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed."

Genesis 21:18: "Arise, lift up the lad [Ishmael], and hold him in shine hand, for I will make him a great nation."

 

[akay]

Prophet Ismail was a legitimate son, and so was Prophet Ishaq, a legitimate son
God has honored the prophets. It is not permissible for a prophet to have a mistress or an adulterer
The history of the Jews is known because they distorted the Bible

They accused the mother of Christ, peace be upon him, of adultery and tried to kill Christ, peace be upon him

And they tried to kill the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and of course they falsified the facts about the Prophet Ismail and his mother and made her a mistress



Deuteronomy 21:15-17: "If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hash, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hash: for he is the beginning of the strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Islam does not deny God's blessings on Isaac and his descendants, but the son of promise is Ishmael, from whom arose Muhammad as the seal of the prophets.

C. Can you prove that Jews changed the name of Ishmael to Isaac because of chauvinism?

M. The Encyclopaedia Judaica says:

It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from the Qurayza tribe, and another Jewish scholar, who converted to Islam, told that Caliph Omar Ibn 'Abd al-Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail was the one who was bound, but that they concealed this out of jealousy. The Muslim legend also adds details of Hajar, the mother of Ismail. After Abraham drove her and her son out, she wandered between the hills of al-Safa and al-Marwa (in the vicinity of Mecca) in search for water. At that time the waters of the spring Zemzem began to flow. Her acts became the basis for the hallowed custom of Muslims during the Hajj.

Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 9, Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, pp. 82 (Under 'Ishmael').

The testimony of the former Jew as mentioned hadith literature as quoted in the Encyclopaedia Judaica reads:

Another proof of our speech [i.e., that sacrificed was Ishmael (P)] is reported by Ibn Ishaaq: "Muhammad Ibn Ka'b narrated that 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz sent for a man who had been a Jew then converted to Islam and showed signs of true Islam. [Before his conversion], he was one of their scholars [i.e., he was a Jewish scholar] So he [i.e., 'Umar] asked him: which son did Abraham (P) sacrifice? He replied: 'It is Ishmael(P). By God, O Commander of the Believers, the Jews know that but they envy you - the Arabs.'



C. But Ishmael was an illegitimate son.

M. That is what you say, but not what the Bible states. How could such a great prophet as Abraham have an illegal wife and a son out of wedlock!

Genesis 16:3: "... and [Sarah] gave her [Hager] to her husband Abram to be his wife." If the marriage was legal, how could their offspring be illegal? Is a marriage between two foreigners, a Chaldean and an Egyptian, not more legal than a marriage between a man with a daughter of his father? Whether it was a lie of Abraham or not, it is stated in Genesis 20:12: "And yet indeed she [Sarah] is my sister, she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."

The name Ishmael was also chosen by Allah Himself: Genesis 16:11: "And the Angel of the Lord said unto her [Hager]: 'Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael, because the Lord hath heard thy affliction."' Ishmael means "God hears." Where in the Bible is it written that Ishmael was an illegitimate son?

C. Nowhere.

M. Long before both Ishmael and Isaac were born, Allah made a covenant with Abraham:

Genesis 15:18: "... saying Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the Euphrates." Doesn't the greater part of Arabia lie between the Nile and the Euphrates, where all the descendants of Ishmael settled at a later date?

Do you see also the difference that Abraham was called "a stranger" in Canaan but not in the land between the Nile and the Euphrates? As a Chaldean, he was more Arab than Jew.

That covenant was made with Abraham and Ishmael:

Genesis 17:10 This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Genesis 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Taken from: http://islamicweb.com/sacrifice.htm


Q&A: Ishmael or Isaac - Who Was To Be Sacrificed? | Dr. Shabir Ally

How can prove Ismail (Pub) is Sacrificed Not Ishaaq (Pub) . Answered By Dr. Zakir Naik.flv