JESUS

[Cristian]

Muslims don't deny that a crucifixion took place; only that it was Jesus who was crucified. It is not true that the Bible is the exact same as primitive versions. 1 John 5:7-8 is an example of a later addition to the Bible - scholars agree it does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts and that it first shows up in Latin manuscripts centuries later, likely to support trinitarian beliefs.

But the crucifixion of Jesus (specifically) is a historical fact, confirmed by many other sources, not some random claim 600 years later like Muhammad said, which contradicts what people back then actually reported.

Yes, the Bible isn’t exactly the same as the earliest manuscripts, that’s true, but saying the central message changed is absurd. The Bible has over 66,000 cross-references and the text is internally consistent from start to finish. A text edited carelessly wouldn’t have that.

Most manuscripts are about 99% the same, even though they’re independent, and only 1% is different. And that 1%? Most of it, like 99% of the 1%, is just grammar or spelling differences, like “Jesus” or “Iesous”, “the” or “a”, which don’t affect meaning. Then 0.9% are minor differences that also don’t change the message. The so-called “problem” is in the last 0.1%—things like the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11) or the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20). But even those don’t affect the central message, and much of it is confirmed in other Gospels anyway.


Sources: Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Bruce Metzger The Text of the New Testament.

 

[Cristian]

1 John 5:7-8 is an example of a later addition to the Bible - scholars agree it does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts and that it first shows up in Latin manuscripts centuries later, likely to support trinitarian beliefs.

You are completely right, but even if you exclude it from the Bible the core message doesn’t change at all. Keep in mind that even Jesus’ own brothers exalt him. James 1:1 says “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” – the term used is Kyrios, meaning Lord. James 2:1 says “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” – and “Lord of glory” in the OT refers to God (Psalm 24). James 5:7–9 says “Jesus is the Judge at the door” – in the OT the eschatological judge is God. Jude 1:4 says “…they deny our only Sovereign and Lord, Jesus Christ” – notice “Sovereign” (despotēs) is a term used exclusively for God. Jude 1:25 says “to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ, our Lord” – here Jesus is the exclusive mediator of divine glory and receives liturgical honor. Jude 1:5 says “Jesus saved the people of Egypt” – honestly there are some textual variations here, but academically the most probable reading is indeed “Jesus” and not another name.

It’s worth remembering that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in his ministry at first (John 7:5) and only after seeing him resurrected did they believe and became fundamental to the early church, writing all of what I just mentioned.

 

[Cristian]

Dr. J.K. Elliott, of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Leeds University, wrote an article published in The Times, London (10th Sept., 1987) entitled “Checking the Bible’s Roots”. In it, he stated that:

“More than 5,000 manuscripts contain all or part of the New Testament in its original language. These range in date from the second century up to the invention of printing. It has been estimated that no two agree in all particulars. Inevitably, all handwritten documents are liable to contain accidental errors in copying. However, in living theological works it is not surprising that deliberate changes were introduced to avoid or alter statements that the copyist found unsound. There was also a tendency for copyists to add explanatory glosses[9]. Deliberate changes are more likely to have been introduced at an early stage before the canonical status of the New Testament was established.”The author went on to explain that “no one manuscript contains the original, unaltered text in its entirety,” and that, “one cannot select any one of these manuscripts and rely exclusively on its text as if it contained the monopoly the original words of the original authors.”

I think you may not have fully understood Elliott’s point. Everything he says is actually true: there are over 5,000 independent manuscripts, no two manuscripts are identical in every detail (and that detail part really matters), and there is no single manuscript that has a monopoly on the original, unaltered text. I couldn’t agree more with that. But none of this logically leads to the claim that the overall message of the text is corrupted.

That narrative usually appears because, for Islam to be true, the Bible has to be false. One directly cancels the other, it’s not a “continued message” the way many Muslims believe.

And if needed, we can even remove the New Testament from the discussion, because the Qur’an also has many inconsistencies with the Old Testament. That’s important since the Qur’an heavily parallels the OT, yet the Old Testament came centuries earlier and has extremely high textual reliability, especially confirmed by sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[Cristian]

The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was an unlettered Prophet who could neither read nor write, nor was he taught by a Christian to be able to relate stories from apocrypha. The fact that there are similarities in their teachings points to the fact that both were Prophets sent by the same God, preaching the same core message.

Like I said, Muhammad could have been illiterate (and that itself is not an academic consensus), but that doesn’t prevent him from hearing traditions that were widely spread in his region, nor from receiving literary or theological help. The scribe Zayd ibn Thabit as I said earlier, who helped record the revelations and had contact with Jewish and Christian communities. So illiteracy doesn’t solve the problem.

Also, Muhammad’s experience itself is not unique in religious history. The claim “an angel appeared to me and delivered a message” appears many times. You see it in the Bible with Paul (Galatians 1:12), in Mormonism with Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni, and in several other religious movements. If we apply the same logic consistently, we would also have to accept Joseph Smith’s theology, including his idea that humans can become gods, which both you and I would agree is absurd and heretical within our own beliefs.

So similarities with apocryphal and post-biblical traditions don’t automatically point to a shared divine source. They can just as reasonably point to shared religious environment, oral transmission, and later theological development. Study what Geiger said in "Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen?"; Theodor Nöldeke also explains in his work Geschichte des Qorāns (History of the Qur’an) the textual development of the Qur’an, the Jewish and Christian influences, and the coincident progressive formation of Islamic theology.

Wansbrough also shows how Islam emerged within a sectarian Jewish-Christian environment with ideas that are not near historically accepted.

 

[Cristian]

There are many verses which highlight how Jesus عليه السلام was not God:

• My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)
• “I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.” (John 8:28)
• “Most assuredly, I say to you, the son can do nothing of himself. . . .” (John 5:19)
• "He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
• “But now I go away to Him who sent me. . . .” (John 16:5)
• “Jesus answered them and said, ‘My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.’” (John 7:16)
• “For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.” (John 12:49)
• “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Mark 12:29)
• “But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32)
• “I can of myself do nothing . . . I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me.” (John 5:30)
• “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.” (John 6:38)
• “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)

We also see that throughout the Gospels, Jesus prayed to God. This certainly argues against his being God. God would not pray to Himself.

• “In his anguish, Jesus prayed with all the greater intensity, and his sweat became like drops of blood falling to the ground.” [Luke 22:44]
• “He went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.” [Luke 6:12]
• 'One day he was praying in a certain place. When he had finished, one of his disciples asked him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.” He said to them, “When you pray, say: `Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us the wrong we have done as we forgive those who wrong us. Subject us not to the trial but deliver us from the evil one.”' [Luke 11:1-4] [Matthew 6:9-13]

From what I see, the issue is always the same, but it keeps being misunderstood. All these verses don’t really disprove Jesus’ divinity, they just show a misunderstanding of what the Trinity actually teaches. I could debate each verse one by one, but honestly, once you understand the Trinity, the tension disappears.

In the Old Testament, Ruach Elohim is clearly the Spirit of God. There are dozens of passages pointing to a new covenant between God and humanity (I can go deeper on this if needed). Jesus himself clearly affirmed this at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20; Matthew 26:28), when He said that His blood was “the new covenant”, meaning a new covenant was being established according to Scripture, not a vague idea but the exact biblical term.. And that was progressively revealed, until in the time of Jesus it becomes 100% clear. The Ruach Elohim already acts, speaks, empowers, and gives life (Genesis 1:2), which are the same core attributes of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.

Jesus, even being God, chose to work through the Holy Spirit while on earth. Scripture explicitly says He was anointed and empowered by the Spirit (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38). This fits perfectly with Philippians 2:6–8, where it says He emptied himself and took the form of a servant. That’s why He shows submission to the Father, not because He is lesser in nature, but because He came to serve (Mark 10:45).

And this submission goes both ways: the Father also publicly honors and glorifies the Son, at Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3:17) and again at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:5). So these verses don’t contradict the Trinity, they actually fit it exactly when the doctrine is understood correctly.

 

[Cristian]

aNote that Jesus عليه السلام taught people to pray to God, not to himself. In fact, he did not mention himself in any way, nor did he indicate that we should pray in his name. His instructions were very specific-we are to pray to God alone. This would not be the case if Jesus himself were God.

Jesus teaching people to pray to the Father does not deny His divinity. The Trinity, prayer is normally directed to the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit. That’s exactly what Jesus teaches. As I already explained.

And it is a lie that Jesus never told people to pray in His name. He explicitly says, “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do” (John 14:13–14) and “If you ask the Father for anything in my name, He will give it to you” (John 16:23). Praying in Jesus’ name assumes His unique authority and role as mediator, something no prophet ever claimed.

And again, during His earthly mission Jesus came as a servant. So it’s natural that He models dependence, humility, and obedience to the Father. It is simply about role and mission, not about denying who He is. Teaching prayer to God does not exclude Jesus from divinity, it shows how the relationship within the Trinity works.
Ultimately, if I could say only one thing, it would be that I find extremely interesting that Muslims often demand something like “I am God, worship me,” and when verses appear that are explicitly saying that (or even something more powerful), there is a constant attempt to reinterpret what the text “really” means. This is especially strange coming from people who frequently claim there was large-scale textual corruption in the entire Bible.

The bigger problem is this: there is coincidentally no single verse where Jesus clearly says the opposite, like “I am only a prophet, I have no authority, do not worship me.” The Bible says "you are mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Hosea 4:6 also says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” And Jesus himself says in John 5:39–40 to study the Scriptures, because you think in them you have eternal life, and it is they that testify about me.

Many ideas that are presented as “problems” really just show a lack of biblical knowledge and proper understanding, not real theological contradictions. Even Muhammad tells people to read the Torah and the Gospel to see that what he says is true (Qur’an 3:3–4; 5:46). But unfortunately, when this is done, one often finds inconsistencies, contradictions, and serious historical problems

May the piece be with you. God bless.

 

[Cristian]

Note that Jesus عليه السلام taught people to pray to God, not to himself.

One last point, there’s a passage where Jesus says, “My time has not yet come” (John 2:4), which shows that He couldn’t speak (or do) absolutely everything He wanted to at once—otherwise His death would have happened sooner than it was supposed to. There’s even the verse in John 16:12, where He says He still has much more to tell them, but they cannot bear it yet. So this clear demand from Muslims for a statement like “I am God, I’m changing Moses’ law, worship me ” would be, at the very least, unrealistic given the reality and the proper order of events. But still he gives explicit statements of his divinity (and also acts as so), and also reveal aspects of his divine nature to some disciples (not all of them, most of the time), so we could understand who he was. Notice that it wasn't every person that could bear the message, as I already said.

Remember that even C.S. Lewis, a major Christian thinker and writer, said Jesus is either a lunatic, a liar, or the Lord. there’s no middle ground between them. Aspect that every single religion does when they talk about Jesus, they manipulate his words stating that he was a "great prophet", "best human alive", "perfect spirit" and so on.

 

[Cristian]

Muslims don't deny that a crucifixion took place; only that it was Jesus who was crucified.

Another interesting fact is that in Luke 23:43, when Jesus was crucified alongside the criminals, He forgave the thief and promised him paradise, showing a clear divine authority and mercy. The Bible also records that Mary, Mary Magdalene, and John were there witnessing it. So this demonstration of divinity, was done for some random person? And Mary, Mary Magdalene, and John were all experiencing a collective hallucination? That would be the only alternative.

Even more, Mary Magdalene was the first to see the empty tomb (John 20:1). Remember, at that time a woman was not considered a credible witness in legal or historical terms. If there had been corruption as you claim, this would be one of the first facts to be altered, and probably an apostle would have been placed instead, but it wasn’t.

 

[Muhammad]

Hello Cristian,

I also find it ironic to cite biblical passages while claiming that “they are written by anonymous authors whose credentials, motives, and authority are unknown.”

Muslims quote the Bible for different reasons. It is possible that there are remnants of truth in it from the original scriptures revealed to Moses and Jesus عليهما السلام so it is a way of reasoning with Christians on a common ground. The criterion Muslims use here is the Qur'an; whatever conforms to the Qur'an then we accept it as true, and whatever contradicts the Qur'an then we reject it as false.

First, this claim is a poorly supported fallacy in the vast majority of cases. Historically, the Gospels were unanimously attributed by early sources to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as early as the late first and early second centuries, including testimony from Papias (c. 110 AD), Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), and Clement of Alexandria. No competing authorship traditions exist.

These early writings simply reflect the beliefs and views of early Christian writers; they don't offer direct evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the actual authors. The Gospels themselves do not name their authors internally, rather, titles ('According to Matthew' etc.) were added later. It is also important to point out that extant writings accredited to early Christian writers such as Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycarp (who were writing shortly after the New Testament authors) do not explicitly name Gospel authors ('evangelists'). This fact was described by the theologian Dr. Henry Dodwell as he said:

“Nowadays we have certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times such as Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius… who wrote in the order in which I have named them, and who wrote after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament [Gospels], nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named.” [Dissertations upon Irenaeus (1689), Dissertation I, Section 38]

Even the Catholic Church now recognizes that those traditional titles are pseudonymous. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “the first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. […] It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves.”

The reality is that the Bible is a historical document that names kings, genealogies, concrete locations, and places events within identifiable chronologies. This contrasts with the Qur’an, which presents fragmented narratives, lacks a continuous historical chronology, and often refers to characters without precise geographic or historical context.

The two are indeed very different. The Qur'an is not a history book arranged into chronological chapters as an unfamiliar reader may assume. On the contrary, it is a Book of guidance teaching us about God's message for the whole of humanity. The Qur'an has a unique, sophisticated structural coherence such that its key messages are embedded throughout, allowing everyone to benefit from it irrespective of how much they read. That is, a person does not need to read the entire or large portions of the Qur’ān in one sitting to find out what God wants from us. This also facilitates regular reading, reflection and memorisation. The narratives of the Qur'an are lesson-oriented, thus they are presented in ways that reinforce and highlight contextual themes and messages, with superfluous details such as precise geographic location or detailed genealogy intentionally omitted to maintain focus on the goals of each narrative.

More significantly, it contains (coincidentally) hundreds of near-exact parallels to earlier Jewish and Christian narratives (as noted by Abraham Geiger in Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen?, a foundational academic study on Qur’anic dependence on Jewish sources), Christian and Christian-apocryphal writings (which are historically weak), post-biblical Jewish literature such as the Midrash (especially Genesis Rabbah), the Babylonian Talmud, Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, intertestamental Jewish literature like 1 Enoch, as well as Eastern and Syriac Christian traditions (Nestorian and Monophysite), and even pre-Islamic Arabian oral traditions, ancient Arabic poetry, tribal accounts, and Hanif monotheism.

The response to this point has been moved to my last post as it was too long to fit here.

 

[Muhammad]

What I am saying is that, due to these inconsistencies in the Qur’an—

So far you haven't shown any!

and many other historical reasons that favor the Bible as a historical source (which I can explain further if you wish)—the Gospels remain the primary historical evidence recounting the life of the most impactful man in human history: Jesus Christ. And this is without stating the obvious: we are dealing with a figure who appears 600 years later and must academically override established history in order to sustain his claims. It is historically undeniable that Jesus existed, was crucified, and that His disciples believed He rose from the dead. How, then, am I expected to accept that the crucifixion merely “appeared so to them” (Qur’an 4:157) according to a prophet who lived six centuries later—especially when the resurrection is supported by early historical testimony?

Whilst the Bible may be a historical source, there are a number of issues that affect its credibility, one of which has already been highlighted that the Gospel authors were anonymous. How can one know that the words of the authors accurately reflect the teachings of Jesus? Father Kannengiesser, a professor at the Catholic Institute of Paris, warns that, 'one should not take literally' facts reported about Jesus by the Gospels, because they are 'writings suited to an occasion' or 'to combat', whose authors 'are writing down the traditions of their own community about Jesus'. Concerning the Resurrection of Jesus, which is the subject of his book, he stresses that none of the authors of the Gospels can claim to have been an eye-witness. [Faith in the Resurrection, Resurrection of Faith (Foi en la Resurrection, Resurrection de la foi)]

The mistake you have made with regards to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is to assume he was transmitting information from contemporaries as the authors of the New Testament are believed to have done. To the contrary, he was a Prophet receiving Revelation from God in the same way that previous Prophets like Jesus, Moses and Abraham عليهم السلام received Revelation. This makes each of them an independent authority regardless of the time spanning between them. As for the evidences showing he was a true Prophet and that the Qur'an is the Word of God, these are many and a topic for a different thread.

The resurrection is attested by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3–8, c. AD 55), Tacitus (Annals 15.44, c. AD 116), and Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3, c. AD 93)—

It must be remembered that Paul never knew Jesus and did not ever meet him. Yet he explained Jesus' mission in a way that Jesus himself never did. The disciples who knew Jesus best, such as Peter and John, left no writings behind them explaining how Jesus seemed to them or what they considered his mission to have been. Instead, the dominant outlook and shaping perspective of the Gospels is that of Paul, for the simple reason that it was the Paulinist view of what Jesus’ sojourn on Earth had been about that was triumphant in the Church as it developed in history. Rival interpretations, which at one time had been orthodox, opposed to Paul’s very individual views, became heretical and were crowded out of the final version of the writings adopted by the Pauline Church as the inspired canon of the New Testament.

Regarding Tacitus, he did not actually mention anything about Jesus being resurrected. As for Josephus, he was a Jewish historian who would not have affirmed Jesus' resurrection, hence almost all scholars agree that such words were attributed to him by later Christian scribes.

 

[Muhammad]

The idea that Muhammad was illiterate is not unanimously accepted academically, but even if it were true, it would not resolve the issue. Nearly all the traditions I mentioned were transmitted orally, which was standard for religious material at the time. Moreover, Muhammad had scribes and companions who assisted in recording revelations—most notably Zayd ibn Thabit, who had contact with Jewish communities and was familiar with earlier religious traditions. So yes, it is historically accurate that people around Muhammad were literate and exposed to Jewish and Christian ideas.

You are confusing 'academic' for orientalist circles, which are notorious for neglecting facts for their own convenience. The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم lived amongst his people for 40 years before the Revelation came to him and it was common knowledge that he was illiterate. The Qur'an makes reference to this in a number of places; had this not been true, the Arabs would have immediately challenged this point. Yet, there is no record of the pagan Arabs accusing the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم of not being illiterate. They instead accused him of having a tutor or of being possessed, etc.

As for traditions 'transmitted orally', again, these are merely desperate claims. The majority of narratives in the Qur'an regarding the previous Prophets and nations were revealed in Makkah, where there was an absence of Jewish and Christian sources. Moreover, Jewish and Christian oral traditions would usually be transmitted through years of teaching and embedded in liturgical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Greek). The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was not trained in these languages, was not attached to a synagogue or church and did not sit under known teachers. Casual exposure to supposed Judeo-Christian 'oral traditions' in a pagan society would not explain a coherent theological system, consistent monotheism and a sophisticated polemic against such traditions.

Attempting to cast doubt on Companions such as Zayd ibn Thabit also doesn't work. Zayd was born in Madinah, and as mentioned above, the majority of narratives in the Qur'an regarding the previous Prophets and nations were revealed in Makkah. He was a young boy when he first met the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and he had already memorised several chapters of the Qur'an prior to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم migrating to Madinah (through another Companion). So the fact that he was learning Qur'an before even meeting the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and that large portions of the Qur'an had already been revealed shows he had no influence on the content of the Qur'an.

First, Jesus rarely refers to Himself directly as the “Son of God.” The title He most frequently uses for Himself is “the Son of Man,” and this is crucial. In Second Temple Judaism, this term was neither neutral nor merely human. It is a direct reference to Daniel 7:13–14, where the Son of Man is a heavenly figure who comes with the clouds, something attributed exclusively to God in the Old Testament, receives authority, glory, and an eternal kingdom, is worshiped by all nations, and possesses a dominion that will never pass away. All of these are divine attributes.

The use of Daniel 7 does not force a deity claim, rather it can be seen as authority and God's approval due to a number of points. Firstly, there is no single interpretation of the 'Son of Man' and other views include a human Messiah. It emphasises human likeness, not divinity. Secondly, note that the figure described by Daniel 7:13-14 does not possess authority inherently; he receives it from God. Thirdly, Jewish literature often applies divine imagery (including clouds) to God’s agents such as angels. Fourthly, Daniel 7:14 says all nations serve (Aramaic pelach) the Son of Man; the same verb is used elsewhere for service to kings or rulers so the text does not explicitly say the Son of Man is worshipped as God. So in Second Temple terms, this is a God-appointed, exalted human figure.

This is precisely why, when Jesus applies this title to Himself, such as in Mark 14:61–64, where He says that the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds, the high priest responds by accusing Him of blasphemy. If Jesus were only claiming a human or prophetic role, this reaction would make no sense. And even if the claim were merely shocking, it would not have resulted in crucifixion, which is a historically accepted fact.

The high priest’s reaction does not prove Jesus claimed to be God because in Second Temple Judaism, claiming divinely-granted authority could be considered blasphemous even if the claimant was understood as human. This is supported by the fact, acknowledged in the Old Testament, that the Jews killed a number of Prophets. Likewise, Romans crucified people for claiming authority or disrupting social and religious order. So this shows Jesus was perceived as dangerous, not that He explicitly claimed to be God.

Jesus also accepts worship, something forbidden to any prophet, and exercises exclusively divine attributes. He forgives sins in His own authority in Mark 2:5–7, presents Himself as the eschatological judge of humanity in Matthew 25, claims pre-existence before Abraham by saying “before Abraham was, I AM” in John 8:58, and redefines the Sabbath by declaring Himself “Lord of the Sabbath.”

All the examples given are consistent with Second Temple Jewish expectations for a human agent exercising God-given authority. Proskuneō is a term that can be used in the Bible for kings, angels, or other God’s representatives which does not necessarily mean worship. In the Bible, kings and Prophets sometimes pronounced forgiveness or blessings on God’s behalf (e.g., 2 Chronicles 7:14 — God works through leaders). Acting as God’s agent in judgment does not automatically imply intrinsic divinity, only that the figure represents God’s authority. Claiming to be “Lord of the Sabbath” can be understood to mean he has God’s delegated authority to interpret Torah, not that he is God.

That could be true, but then why in John 10:31–33 do they say explicitly, “because you, being a man, make yourself God”? Notice, “make yourself God,” not prophet or teacher, but God.

A more accurate translation is, '…you, a man, claim to be a god', because the Greek word theos is used in the indefinite form here. Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God’s work so it makes sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be 'a god' or 'divine.' More importantly, in the next few verses, Jesus corrects their interpretation by clarifying that the claim to be 'God’s Son' is about divine commission and authority - not a claim to be God Himself.

Jesus uses the term “hen” (“one” in the neuter), indicating unity of essence or nature, not merely agreement of will between two persons.

The Greek word hen simply means 'one'; it can mean unity of purpose, mission, or will, not necessarily unity of essence. This is shown by its usage in John 17:21–22 where Jesus prays that many human disciples will also be hen.

That would only make sense if Jesus was using “egō eimi” like a normal phrase, but John 8:58 clearly isn’t that. He doesn’t say “before Abraham I was,” which would be normal, he says “before Abraham was, I AM,” which is like breaking grammar to show timeless existence. Plus, in the Greek OT, especially Exodus and Isaiah, God uses “egō eimi” exactly like this. And the point keeps: the Jews try to stone him right after. They don’t do that when someone says “it’s me” or “I’m the Messiah,” it only makes sense if they understood him claiming to be God. So saying it’s just a normal phrase totally misses the context and their reaction again.

The phrase used in Exodus 3:14 is: egō eimi ho ōn (I am the one who is)

John 8:58 only uses the first part of this phrase: egō eimi (I am)

Isaiah’s 'egō eimi' statements occur with explicit divine context ('I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior') which John 8:58 lacks.


We can therefore see that the exact phrase hasn't been used, only a part of it; the same part that is used many other times and attributed to other people such as the blind man in John 9:9. So using this phrase does not identify one with God. Moreover, Greek speakers sometimes used a break in grammar for vividness or emphasis.

With regard to the reaction of the Jews, again it does not prove Jesus was claiming to be God because people were accused of blasphemy for various reasons and Jesus later corrects their interpretation in John 10:34–36 as mentioned above.

 

[Muhammad]

Great point, Luke 23:34 shows Jesus asking God to forgive people, but we gotta see the full message. He became fully man, like it says in Philippians 2, where he “emptied himself” of divine privilege, and he was helped by the Holy Spirit. The Son of Man didn’t come to be served but to serve, like in Matthew 20:28. So it’s natural he shows reverence to the Father. Exactly as the Father also shows honor to the Son at his baptism, when he says “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” in Matthew 3:17, and again at the transfiguration, where God speaks “This is my Son, my chosen one; listen to him” in Luke 9:35.

Luke 23:34 shows Jesus acting as an intercessor who asks God to forgive, not as someone exercising divine authority. Appealing to Philippians 2 actually reinforces this, since it says Jesus emptied himself and lived dependently as a servant. A figure who prays to God, relies on the Spirit, and receives authority is functioning as God’s appointed human agent, not as God Himself.

Then why such a incredible "prophet" wouldn't immediately correct Thomas, because that would be a blasphemy.

Thomas was not claiming Jesus was God, so there would be no need for correction. If he was calling Jesus God then why didn't Jesus capitalise on the only instance where a disciple explicitly called him God? Even the author, John, brushes over this verse by saying, 'but these are written so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God…' (John 20:31); he does not say that he wrote these things ‘so that we would believe that Jesus is God.’

About John 20:17, it’s a beautiful verse, but like I said in Matthew 20:28, Jesus said he came to serve, not to be served. So this fact doesn’t prove or disprove his divinity.

Both of these verses support the fact that Jesus was a Prophet and servant of God.

It’s also worth noting that John and Paul’s letters are the only books that the Qur’an doesn’t make any clear parallels to, unlike almost the rest of the Bible. That seems very unlikely to happen by chance, unless the content was strategically selected. Think about it, of the whole Bible, only Paul and John—doesn’t really look like a coincidence.

'Strategically selected' how? There wasn't an Arabic Bible available until centuries later!

Finally, there is the inescapable statement of Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The word “name” is singular, placing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit within a single divine identity.

In biblical usage, a singular 'name' can indicate authority or role (eg. Deuteronomy 18:5 and 7 speak of serving in the 'name' (authority) of the Lord). So this verse can be seen as a liturgical or functional formula, not necessarily a metaphysical statement that they share the same essence.

Great point, but unfortunately not everything is 100% factual and doesn’t necessarily apply to your assumptions. First, Eusebius in Church History, Book III, cites accounts of the apostles baptizing and sometimes mentions baptisms “in the name of Jesus” or “in my name” in historical contexts, but that doesn’t mean he had a different text of Matthew 28:19. Saying that would be baseless, because he could just be summarizing or interpreting the apostolic practice. There’s no academic consensus that the original manuscripts of Matthew 28:19 were different. Most ancient manuscripts, like Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and others, contain the Trinitarian statement “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The absence of “Trinity” in his quotes doesn’t prove the original passage was different.

And yeah, in Acts baptisms are often mentioned “in the name of Jesus” (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). But that just reflects historical apostolic practice, it doesn’t necessarily contradict Matthew 28:19, which is a theological command, not a literal manual for how every baptism should be performed.

Even if Eusebius’ reports aren’t a literal quotation, they indicate how early Christians understood and applied the text. If most apostles baptised 'in Jesus’ name', it indicates a focus on Jesus’ authority or identity instead of a Trinitarian concept. If you say Matthew 28:19 is a theological command, why would the apostles disobey such a command? Even if the Father, Son and holy spirit are mentioned in the original text of this verse, that does not prove the trinity. The doctrine of the trinity states that the Father, son and holy spirit together make 'one God'; this verse refers to three, but never says they are 'one'.

But the crucifixion of Jesus (specifically) is a historical fact, confirmed by many other sources, not some random claim 600 years later like Muhammad said, which contradicts what people back then actually reported.

Such sources, even eyewitnesses, cannot prove that it was Jesus who was crucified. This is because, according to one interpretation, the likeness of Jesus was placed upon someone else who was then crucified, not Jesus.

 

[Muhammad]

Yes, the Bible isn’t exactly the same as the earliest manuscripts, that’s true, but saying the central message changed is absurd.

I'll just quote one quote here. When the Revised King James Version was published at the end of the nineteenth century, many “orthodox” scholars felt that the new “updates” in the text so badly damaged the Christian faith that they decided to launch an offensive campaign against the team of scholars responsible for it, accusing them, or their preferred manuscripts, of straying from the faith. Even today, some authors accuse the two main figures in the translation committee responsible for the Revised Version (Westcott and Hort) of being heretics; D.A. Waite, a Baptist scholar and one of the most famous defendants of the King James Version today, writes: “these two men were apostates, liberal and unbelievers” (Defending the King James Bible, Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today Press, 1996, p.41).

The Bible has over 66,000 cross-references and the text is internally consistent from start to finish. A text edited carelessly wouldn’t have that.

From the verses quoted in this thread alone we can see there is no internal consistency; for instance, one cannot be a follower of Jesus and Paul at the same time.

Most manuscripts are about 99% the same, even though they’re independent, and only 1% is different. And that 1%? Most of it, like 99% of the 1%, is just grammar or spelling differences, like “Jesus” or “Iesous”, “the” or “a”, which don’t affect meaning. Then 0.9% are minor differences that also don’t change the message.

Firstly, we need to point out that the New Testament manuscripts are copies and copies of copies; they are not independent texts that have been written by original authors. Most of these manuscripts were copied many centuries (some over a millenium) after the writing of the New Testament. Moreover, with regard to the Greek New Testament manuscripts that are available, some 80-90% represent the Byzantine or the 'Majority' text which is almost universally considered to be the worst text-type. Bearing this in mind, even if it is true that the manuscripts are 99% the same, this is not reassuring considering their poor quality. But the modern day textual critics seem to give quite a different picture of the accuracy of the New Testament. For instance, the committee of textual critics for the United Bible Societies' The Greek New Testament suggested textual certainty to be about 83.5% (which is way off from "99%" agreement between the New Testament text in the manuscripts).

The second issue is with regards to the differences simply being in grammar or spelling. This is unfortunately being too hopeful. In the earliest Christian periods, the professed followers of Jesus were engaged in intense polemics against each other. In this highly charged atmosphere, accusations of moral, ethical and theological corruption rifled back and forth, with various parties accusing the other of corrupting and fabricating 'scripture'. For example, an "orthodox" presbyter of Asia Minor owned up to forging the Apostolic Constitutions and III Corinthians. In his defence the deposed presbyter claimed that he did it "out of love for Paul." In fact, the textual history of the first three hundred years of the New Testament is described by the textual critics as "the period of relative freedom" or "the period of relative creativity." During this period the majority of changes to the text of the New Testament, both accidental and intentional, originated.

The New Testament scholar Harry Gamble says:

Complaints about the adulteration of texts are fairly frequent in early Christian literature. Christian texts, scriptural and nonscriptural, were no more immune than others from vicissitudes of unregulated transmission in handwritten copies. In some respects they were more vulnerable than ordinary texts, and not merely because Christian communities could not always command the most competent scribes. Although Christian writings generally aimed to express not individual viewpoints but the shared convictions and values of a group, members of the group who acted as editors and copyists must often have revised texts in accordance with their own perceptions. This temptation was stronger in connection with religious or philosophical texts than with others simply because more was at stake. A great deal of early Christian literature was composed for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint amid the conflicts of ideas and practices that repeatedly arose within and between Christian communities, and even documents that were not polemically conceived might nevertheless be polemically used. Any text was liable to emendation in the interest of making it more pointedly serviceable in a situation of theological controversy. [H. Y. Gamble, Books And Readers In The Early Church: A History Of Early Christian Texts, 1995, Yale University Press: New Haven & London, pp. 123-124.]

The so-called “problem” is in the last 0.1%—things like the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11) or the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20). But even those don’t affect the central message, and much of it is confirmed in other Gospels anyway.

The key point though, is that textual transmission involved interpretation and editing, not just copying. Earlier you claimed that 'the Bible was recognized exactly as it is today by the primitive church around two centuries after Christ', yet now you admit there are entire passages that have been added!

In his remarks on the Revised Version (1881 A.D.), Alexander Gordon declared, “These two passages [end of Mark and the woman caught in adultery passage], put together, contain more matter than the Epistle to Philemon; while they embrace unique affirmations both of theological and of ethical doctrine. It is plain that the raising of unavoidable doubts as to the canonicity of considerable and important sections of the text, opens the way to an inquiry more fundamental than is suggested by the mere excision of isolated verses; though this in itself is sometimes startling enough.”

 

[Muhammad]

You are completely right, but even if you exclude it from the Bible the core message doesn’t change at all.

This is about 1 John 5:7-8. It is a clear example of text being added to give explicit biblical support for the trinity. Again, evidence that the Bible today is corrupted.

James 1:1 says “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” – the term used is Kyrios, meaning Lord. James 2:1 says “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” – and “Lord of glory” in the OT refers to God (Psalm 24). James 5:7–9 says “Jesus is the Judge at the door” – in the OT the eschatological judge is God. Jude 1:4 says “…they deny our only Sovereign and Lord, Jesus Christ” – notice “Sovereign” (despotēs) is a term used exclusively for God. Jude 1:25 says “to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ, our Lord” – here Jesus is the exclusive mediator of divine glory and receives liturgical honor. Jude 1:5 says “Jesus saved the people of Egypt” – honestly there are some textual variations here, but academically the most probable reading is indeed “Jesus” and not another name.

Remember we are talking about where did JESUS ever say 'I am God' or 'worship me'. All that you have posted simply suggests how early Christians honoured Jesus with exalted titles and authority; this doesn't by itself prove Jesus is God. It's also worth pointing out that these figures do not appear at all as having anything to do with Jesus’ mission and story. Both James and Jude were allegedly skeptical Jesus during his lifetime (with James thinking he was mad) yet suddenly became revered church leaders. Later church legends, of course, filled the gap with stories of their miraculous conversions.

I think you may not have fully understood Elliott’s point. Everything he says is actually true: there are over 5,000 independent manuscripts, no two manuscripts are identical in every detail (and that detail part really matters), and there is no single manuscript that has a monopoly on the original, unaltered text. I couldn’t agree more with that. But none of this logically leads to the claim that the overall message of the text is corrupted.

I think I have understood it sufficiently. So you admit that deliberate changes were introduced in the Bible to avoid or alter statements that the copyist found unsound. This is truly shocking.

Also, Muhammad’s experience itself is not unique in religious history. The claim “an angel appeared to me and delivered a message” appears many times. You see it in the Bible with Paul (Galatians 1:12), in Mormonism with Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni, and in several other religious movements. If we apply the same logic consistently, we would also have to accept Joseph Smith’s theology, including his idea that humans can become gods, which both you and I would agree is absurd and heretical within our own beliefs.

Whilst it is true that many 'false prophets' have arisen in the course of history, Paul quite possibly being one of them, none of them brought anything close to the miracle of the Qur'an and proved the truth of his claim.

From what I see, the issue is always the same, but it keeps being misunderstood. All these verses don’t really disprove Jesus’ divinity, they just show a misunderstanding of what the Trinity actually teaches. I could debate each verse one by one, but honestly, once you understand the Trinity, the tension disappears.

The earliest Christian creed lacks Trinitarian reference so I find it strange you think these verses should be reinterpreted in view of a doctrine that Jesus didn't preach.

In the Old Testament, Ruach Elohim is clearly the Spirit of God. There are dozens of passages pointing to a new covenant between God and humanity (I can go deeper on this if needed). Jesus himself clearly affirmed this at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20; Matthew 26:28), when He said that His blood was “the new covenant”,

Bringing a new covenant is the role of a Prophet; it does not prove one's divine nature.

And it is a lie that Jesus never told people to pray in His name. He explicitly says, “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do” (John 14:13–14) and “If you ask the Father for anything in my name, He will give it to you” (John 16:23). Praying in Jesus’ name assumes His unique authority and role as mediator, something no prophet ever claimed.

Jesus’ 'mediatorial' role is different from a claim of being God. These passages simply suggest that Jesus is giving his disciples authority to approach God through him.

The bigger problem is this: there is coincidentally no single verse where Jesus clearly says the opposite, like “I am only a prophet, I have no authority, do not worship me.”

This argument doesn't make sense because the Jews were already very familiar with the concept of Prophethood and that a human could not be God. The same message of monotheism was preached by all the previous Prophets. That is why the burden of proof lies on Christians who allege that a completely new creed emerged that was previously unheard of, which they themselves debated for centuries to come.

Even Muhammad tells people to read the Torah and the Gospel to see that what he says is true (Qur’an 3:3–4; 5:46). But unfortunately, when this is done, one often finds inconsistencies, contradictions, and serious historical problems

There is no instruction to read the Torah or Gospel in the references you quoted. Listing baseless allegations like this is meaningless and not even worth entertaining.

One last point, there’s a passage where Jesus says, “My time has not yet come” (John 2:4), which shows that He couldn’t speak (or do) absolutely everything He wanted to at once—otherwise His death would have happened sooner than it was supposed to. There’s even the verse in John 16:12, where He says He still has much more to tell them, but they cannot bear it yet. So this clear demand from Muslims for a statement like “I am God, I’m changing Moses’ law, worship me ” would be, at the very least, unrealistic given the reality and the proper order of events. But still he gives explicit statements of his divinity (and also acts as so), and also reveal aspects of his divine nature to some disciples (not all of them, most of the time), so we could understand who he was. Notice that it wasn't every person that could bear the message, as I already said.

This doesn't make sense. Why would 'God' hide the truth from mankind if they needed it for their salvation? Why would the truth be so unbearable?

Remember that even C.S. Lewis, a major Christian thinker and writer, said Jesus is either a lunatic, a liar, or the Lord. there’s no middle ground between them. Aspect that every single religion does when they talk about Jesus, they manipulate his words stating that he was a "great prophet", "best human alive", "perfect spirit" and so on.

There are at least two other possible alternatives: 1) Jesus' words are not to be understood as him claiming to be God, therefore making the position of Muslim apologists and Unitarian Christians who argue that Jesus did not claim to be divine to be a possibility and 2) Even if the New Testament does clearly show that Jesus claimed to be God, these words may be falsely attributed to Jesus.

Another interesting fact is that in Luke 23:43, when Jesus was crucified alongside the criminals, He forgave the thief and promised him paradise, showing a clear divine authority and mercy. The Bible also records that Mary, Mary Magdalene, and John were there witnessing it. So this demonstration of divinity, was done for some random person? And Mary, Mary Magdalene, and John were all experiencing a collective hallucination? That would be the only alternative.

Even more, Mary Magdalene was the first to see the empty tomb (John 20:1). Remember, at that time a woman was not considered a credible witness in legal or historical terms. If there had been corruption as you claim, this would be one of the first facts to be altered, and probably an apostle would have been placed instead, but it wasn’t.

Giving a promise of Paradise or forgiveness on behalf of God does not automatically prove one is God. You have already admitted earlier that verses have been altered in the Bible, so just because this point may not have been altered doesn't prove absence of corruption.

 

[Muhammad]

There are some remaining points to cover which I've added in these last 2 posts.

More significantly, it contains (coincidentally) hundreds of near-exact parallels to earlier Jewish and Christian narratives (as noted by Abraham Geiger in Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen?, a foundational academic study on Qur’anic dependence on Jewish sources), Christian and Christian-apocryphal writings (which are historically weak), post-biblical Jewish literature such as the Midrash (especially Genesis Rabbah), the Babylonian Talmud, Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, intertestamental Jewish literature like 1 Enoch, as well as Eastern and Syriac Christian traditions (Nestorian and Monophysite), and even pre-Islamic Arabian oral traditions, ancient Arabic poetry, tribal accounts, and Hanif monotheism.

The first point to highlight is that Islam is not a new religion, rather it is a continuation of the same core message brought by all the previous Prophets throughout history and the same God revealed the Scriptures they received. So if we consider that the Torah and the Bible contain remnants of truth brought by the Prophets of their respective peoples, the fact that there are parallels in the Qur'an only confirms the reality of continuation of a universal message and is something expected.

However, to assume that the Qur'an has 'borrowed' from Jewish or Christian narratives, pagan Arab culture or any other people (which is what is being claimed by orientalists like Abraham Geiger), is mere fanciful thinking and sheer ignorance of facts proving to the contrary. Why is it in spite of the abundance of historical material on the life of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and in spite of the extensive research on his life for centuries by his severe critics, that it was not possible to discover the mysterious teacher(s) through whom he might have learned all that?

Such claims also do not bother to tell us whether the Arabic translation of the Hebrew Bible and rabbanical sources existed in Arabia. The first Arabic version of the Old Testament and New Testament appeared a few hundred years after the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. As for other literature, Jewish Midrashic literature reached their final form a few hundred years after the advent of Islam. The textual instability as well as the absence of pre-Islamic manuscripts of the Midrashic sources make it impossible to determine the precise nature of the text itself. It is quite obvious that one cannot use sources that came a few hundred years after the advent of Islam to explain the Qur'anic narrative. Pirke de-Rabbi Eli`ezer was redacted at least 200 years after the advent of Islam and the borrowing might well have been quite the reverse – an important point which appears to have been lost on the vast majority of Christian missionaries and apologists.

Moving on to these so-called 'hundreds of near-exact parallels', we find nothing of the sort. The Qur'an corrects material in Judeo-Christian narratives and pagan beliefs rather than reproducing it. There are major creedal differences between the Qur'an and Judeo-Christian texts such as in the concept of God and His Divine Attributes, differences concerning belief in the hereafter and the concept of salvation. The concept of Prophethood is also radically different between the two - the Qur'an depicts Prophets as the best model of piety and moral uprightness, whereas in Judeo-Christian narratives almost all Prophets seem to commit major sins in faith and moral standing. There are also major variations in narratives common to both the Qur'ân and the Judaeo-Christian texts. Taking the story of Adam and Eve as an example, in the Biblical narrative, the woman carries the burden of that mistake and in punishment God multiplied her agony in childbirth. There is not a single verse in the Qur'ân which suggests or implies in any way that the woman bears primary responsibility for that mistake. Pregnancy is described in the Qur'ân as noble and praiseworthy. After their disobedience, the Bible does not at all mention that Adam and Eve repented, whereas the Qur'ân emphasizes this point and mentions how they repented and that God forgave them. There are also major variations in the stories of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Lot, Moses and Jesus.

The 'borrowing' theory is further weakened by the presence in the Qur'ân of narratives or details which are absent in the Judeo-Christian texts. The stories of the people of Ad and Thamud and their Prophets Hud and Saleh are not mentioned in the Bible. Some of the Qur'ânic details which have no parallels in the Bible include the dialogue which Prophet Noah had with his son before the deluge, the dialogue between Abraham and his father and between Abraham and the tyrannical ruler (Nimrod). The miraculous escape of Abraham from the fire and the miracle of resurrection he was shown from God when he brought back to life dead birds. Moses' slaughter of the cow in order to bring back to life a murdered man who revealed his killer, is absent from the Bible and so is the dialogue between Moses and the Israelites on what kind animal should be slaughtered. Also absent in the Bible are Jesus' miraculous speech in the cradle and his fashioning out of clay a similitude of a bird and Mary's miraculous sustenance from God.

Likewise, the Qur'an criticises the pagan Arabs for numerous beliefs and practices and invites them back to the true religion of their forefather Abraham which had been corrupted over time. This lead to their harsh reaction and rejection of the message of Islam. The Arabs were also extremely well-versed in their culture and poetry; if there were 'hundreds of near-exact parallels' indicating plagiarism, they would have immediately recognised this and used it to discredit Islam. Instead, they could find no explanation for how a man unable to read and write could come up with the Qur'an and resorted to illogical claims such as insanity or sorcery.

This is why even those who postulated the borrowing theory like Phillip Hitti were forced to concede that '...the resemblances do not warrant the conclusion of borrowing or quoting or that he was not a slavish imitator.' [Philip K. Hitti, Islam and the West: A Historical Cultural Survey, 1979 (Reprinted), Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, New York, pp. 17-18.]

Richard Bell, who was at pains to prove the direct dependence of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم on the Bible also insists that he was not working on any real acquaintance with the Bible itself. [Richard Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment: The Gunning Lectures Edinburgh University, 1925, London: Frank Cass and Company Limited, 1968 (Reprinted), p. 112.]

 

[Muhammad]

So similarities with apocryphal and post-biblical traditions don’t automatically point to a shared divine source. They can just as reasonably point to shared religious environment, oral transmission, and later theological development. Study what Geiger said in "Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen?"; Theodor Nöldeke also explains in his work Geschichte des Qorāns (History of the Qur’an) the textual development of the Qur’an, the Jewish and Christian influences, and the coincident progressive formation of Islamic theology.

Wansbrough also shows how Islam emerged within a sectarian Jewish-Christian environment with ideas that are not near historically accepted.

It seems you are trying to squeeze in as many orientalist claims that you can against the Qur'an, presumably to save face in a discussion which is supposed to be about Jesus in the Bible, which is invariably what Christians tend to do in these discussions. All such allegations have been addressed adequately by Dr Muhammad Ali in his book, 'the Qur'an and the Orientalists', so you can read the refutations at length there. Of note regarding Wansborough, Dr Ali points out that his conclusions and assumptions elicited sharp criticisms even by most of the orientalists themselves, some of whom describe his work as "drastically wrongheaded", "ferociously opaque" and a "colossal self-deception". Unequally unflattering is the exposed inconsistent and erroneous scholarship of Noldeke.

—especially when the resurrection is supported by early historical testimony?

The earliest attested form of the belief in Jesus’ resurrection occurs in 1 Corinthians 15, a document written by Paul. In his letters, he indicates that the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus was something only known to himself and not common knowledge to the general public. It is Paul who claims that there were 'over five hundred witnesses' that saw Jesus during his resurrection. But we have no testimony fell on his face, and prayed,from any of these five hundred people. None of them ever wrote anything regarding their experiences of what they witnessed. The alleged resurrection took place over 800 kilometers away from Corinthia. Do you think that the Corinthians are going to travel all that distance to go and investigate the matter that easily? Plus, Paul did not indicate where those 500 hundred witnesses were in order for the people to go and ask them.

Later tradition then developed this into the four gospels, each being very different stories of what they thought Paul probably meant. It is Matthew that gets most carried away, stating in Matthew 27:51-53 that there was an earthquake, tombs open up and dead people rise again. If this occurred, another miracle also occurred: no-one else noticed it all and physical evidence was carefully removed across the country. If Matthew’s account of the dead rising from their graves and appearing to many was true, then such a remarkable event would have been reported by historians such as Josephus who avidly recounted the exploits of the supposed miracle workers of those times. Josephus’ father would have been a priest in Jerusalem at the time of the alleged “crucifixion” (The Life of Flavius Josephus, 2:7), and yet Josephus mentions nothing about a midday darkness that was followed by an earthquake and a mass resurrection from the dead. It really should be quite clear even from this one example that the resurrection accounts contain much made up or embellished material.

And if needed, we can even remove the New Testament from the discussion, because the Qur’an also has many inconsistencies with the Old Testament. That’s important since the Qur’an heavily parallels the OT,

Please see the earlier response to borrowing theories and how such a view is inaccurate.

yet the Old Testament came centuries earlier and has extremely high textual reliability, especially confirmed by sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The earliest surviving complete manuscript of the Old Testament dates to about 17 centuries after it was written and not even among the Dead Sea scrolls does one find complete manuscripts of the entire Bible. But the bigger problem is that there is no certain way of knowing how well the manuscripts were copied in the hundreds of years before the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This means that we cannot know with complete certainty just what the original words of the ancient Israelite authors were.

Jesus teaching people to pray to the Father does not deny His divinity. The Trinity, prayer is normally directed to the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit. That’s exactly what Jesus teaches. As I already explained.

Matthew 26:36-39 tells us that Jesus 'fell on his face, and prayed' to the Father, just like Moses prayed in Exodus 34:8 and Abraham in 17:3. All Prophets praying to God in the same way. The concept of trinity was not established until over 300 years later, certainly not something that Jesus taught.

 

[Cristian]

Hey Muhammed, thank you for sharing your ideas. But as in the other time I will answer in parts, not everything in a row cause is a lot of things.

 

[Cristian]

Muslims quote the Bible for different reasons. It is possible that there are remnants of truth in it from the original scriptures revealed to Moses and Jesus عليهما السلام so it is a way of reasoning with Christians on a common ground. The criterion Muslims use here is the Qur'an; whatever conforms to the Qur'an then we accept it as true, and whatever contradicts the Qur'an then we reject it as false.

Okay, I get it. Since is your holy books it makes complete sense.

 

[Cristian]

These early writings simply reflect the beliefs and views of early Christian writers; they don't offer direct evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the actual authors. The Gospels themselves do not name their authors internally, rather, titles ('According to Matthew' etc.) were added later. It is also important to point out that extant writings accredited to early Christian writers such as Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycarp (who were writing shortly after the New Testament authors) do not explicitly name Gospel authors ('evangelists'). This fact was described by the theologian Dr. Henry Dodwell as he said:

“Nowadays we have certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times such as Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius… who wrote in the order in which I have named them, and who wrote after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament [Gospels], nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named.” [Dissertations upon Irenaeus (1689), Dissertation I, Section 38]

Even the Catholic Church now recognizes that those traditional titles are pseudonymous. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “the first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. […] It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves.”

Regarding your point about the testimony of Papias (and others), you are completely ignoring that in ancient historiography, the testimony of someone that close to the period was considered a massive valuable evidence. Papias explicitly states that Matthew wrote the words in Hebrew, and Irenaeus clearly connects the Gospels to the four evangelists. So even if this is not an "absolute proof" in the modern sense, the unanimity of the ancient sources is already a very strong historical indicator. Otherwise, historically saying it would be extremely likely to have competing authors (if they existed), which is not the case.

The fact that the texts were titled later is entirely normal by historical standards of their time; this does not indicate that they were random writings, named arbitrarily (as suggested by the Islamic narrative). Furthermore, there are clear internal indications within the Gospels that strongly point to their authorship. For example, in Gospel of Matthew, he is referred to as Levi in the other Gospels, but in his own account, he never uses the name Levi; instead, he identifies himself as Matthew, which affirms his identity, and shows a personal connection to the events he describes, thing that could be only done by Matthew. In John, he does not explicitly name himself, but refers to himself as the beloved disciple, and this disciple is present at key events, including sitting at the feet of Jesus, witnessing the crucifixion, being present at the empty tomb, and having a close relationship with Jesus, which aligns uniquely with John. Mark is identified by Papias in 110 d.C. as Peter’s interpreter, writing Peter’s accounts and closely reflecting Peter’s teachings and perspective. Historically saying, 110 d.C. (not even a century after Christ died), is absurd.

Regarding the writings you mentioned (Clement, etc.), you are confusing two different things. Those writings were not meant to catalog authors; they were letters and pastoral treatises. Ironically, Ignatius, for example, explicitly cites passages from the Gospels without naming the authors, which actually indicates that the works were already well-known and recognized at the time.

Finally, your idea about the Catholic Church confuses “titles added later,” which did indeed happen (and in a historically reasonable, not arbitrary way), with “false authorship” or “invented authors.” And let’s suppose, hypothetically, that a title was wrongly attributed (which would be historically unlikely): would all the texts agree with one another and recount exactly the same central story, even though they were independent? That would be impossible. The only explanation is that something actually did happened and people that were direct followers of Jesus wrote about it.

 

[Cristian]

These early writings simply reflect the beliefs and views of early Christian writers; they don't offer direct evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the actual authors. The Gospels themselves do not name their authors internally, rather, titles ('According to Matthew' etc.) were added later. It is also important to point out that extant writings accredited to early Christian writers such as Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycarp (who were writing shortly after the New Testament authors) do not explicitly name Gospel authors ('evangelists'). This fact was described by the theologian Dr. Henry Dodwell as he said:

An important parallel: Plato’s dialogues did not originally include his name, and tradition attributed these works to Plato around 3 centuries later. Some of Homer’s poems, for example, were attributed to him about 400–500 years later through oral tradition. Thucydides, likewise, did not write his name on every copy; the attribution came through tradition. Do you see where I’m going with this? Okay, it wasn’t the apostles themselves holding the pen, but the direct followers who were part of their community who wrote on their behalf. There is also a very high historical probability that they could have recited the material while someone else wrote it down, given the strong oral culture of the time, the careful transmission of eyewitness testimony, and the consistent preservation of the stories within their communities.