harmful impurities

[yasoooo]

How the Gospels Insult and Slander Christ

1- The Gospels often mention the commandment of Christ about the parents - the father and the mother - but we find that Jesus himself does not abide by this command and these commandments, as we find him insulting his mother in front of people .

His mother asked him to turn water into wine at the wedding, , and he said to her: “4 “Woman,[a] why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
John 2:1-11


Dear reader, how can someone who has grown up on morals talk to his mother like that in front of a group of people????



We also wonder, is it appropriate for the mother of Christ, the “Christian and Pure Mary” to supervise the making of wine and distributing it among the crowd???
in spite of

Christ, peace be upon him, did not drink alcohol

According to the correct verses of the Bible

With regard to drinking wine, we read in Isaiah 5:22: “
22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks,

” And in Leviticus, 10: 8-10, we read: “

8 Then the Lord said to Aaron, 9 “You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the tent of meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, 10 so that you can distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean,



But the other verses that refer to the prophets and Christ drank wine, these verses are invalid because these verses were invented and written by unknown writers, in addition to Paul, who destroyed the original doctrine of Christ.

Dear reader, reflect on what the Qur’an said about Christ and his mother, where he said about his pure and chaste mother (42) And @ when the angels said, ""O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds. ) (Al Imran) This is Mary, not Mary, who prepares and distributes wine Dear reader, reflect on what the Qur’an said about Christt, “ (32) And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant. ” (Surat Maryam, verse 32). Do not believe some verses in the Bible that aim to spread corruption by unknown writers whose goal is to destroy the message of the prophets and the message of the Prophet Jesus, peace be upon them;

 

[yasoooo]

امرأة مسيحية تحاول أن تبرر لهاشم المجازر في الكتاب المقدس Speakers Corner - Hyde Park

هل أكل القط لسانكم - هاشم في مواجهة مسيحيين

حمزة يهدم المسيحية في نقاش ممتع يجعلها تنسحب

شمسي يرد علي ازدواجية المعايير عند الغرب

شاب جاء يبكي! - ولد من أم أوروبية واب عربي - قصة رائعة

[/mention]

 

[yasoooo]

The Bible has too many false stories for the crucifixion story to also be taken literally.

Ironically, considering that it was apparently done by the people from whom we have the most records of litteraly every minutiae of every aspect of their doings in that era, no, the Romans didn't record an incredibly influential person being executed and then rising from the dead.

We have accounts of the event that claim to have been dictated by four men (the gospels of Luke, John, Matthew, and Mark) none of which were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus.

We even have the journals of a close friend of Pontius Pilate, which offers no record of the event.
No - there are no other records outside the bible referencing Jesus, the crucifixion or the resurrection. It is claimed that some contemporaneous reference was made to Jesus and his followers by Josephus but there is some scholarly suspicion that these references were added by Christians some time later.

It's funny that the resurrection of a dead man did not make the news of the time, or that nobody made a note of all the tombs opening and the dead wandering the streets as claimed in the bible …. Its almost as it it never happened !

It's impossible that on the Easter event, the dead get out of their tombs and graves and walk around town and nobody writes it down. If either of these had happened, we'd have at least a dozen surviving accounts from those historians. Instead, there are zero.


The bible isn't a record of anything, but some historians say there was a very different story of the crusifiction that the bible fabricated to further their narrative, this account states that this fella Jesus was in fact real, but he was not the son of God,

The bible is not a record of the crucifixion. The first of hundreds of versions of the bible was written a century after the supposed event took place. It is a collection of lore, stories of past times passed to succeeding generations by word of mouth. The bible is a story.


Was Jesus (pbuh) really Crucified? by Dr Zakir Naik

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGzS9sfC8P0&t=25s


Jesus was not crucified according to 1st Century Christians

مسيحي هندي يحاول شرح الثالوث… وينتهي به الأمر في حيرة!

مناظرة ملحمية! الشيخ عثمان في مواجهة طلاب مسيحيين حول الكتاب المقدس والقرآن والتناقضات!

مناظرة مضحكة 2 ضد 1! وعّاظ مسيحيون لم يتوقعوا ما حدث! لا تفوّت المشاهدة!

نهاية النقاش! بعد هذا الطرح… لن يذكروا موضوع سنّ عائشة مرة أخرى! لا تفوّت المشاهدة!

 

[rjltrevisan]

How the Gospels Insult and Slander Christ

1- The Gospels often mention the commandment of Christ about the parents - the father and the mother - but we find that Jesus himself does not abide by this command and these commandments, as we find him insulting his mother in front of people .

His mother asked him to turn water into wine at the wedding, , and he said to her: “4 “Woman,[a] why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
John 2:1-11


Dear reader, how can someone who has grown up on morals talk to his mother like that in front of a group of people????



We also wonder, is it appropriate for the mother of Christ, the “Christian and Pure Mary” to supervise the making of wine and distributing it among the crowd???
in spite of

Christ, peace be upon him, did not drink alcohol

According to the correct verses of the Bible

With regard to drinking wine, we read in Isaiah 5:22: “
22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks,

” And in Leviticus, 10: 8-10, we read: “

8 Then the Lord said to Aaron, 9 “You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the tent of meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, 10 so that you can distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean,



But the other verses that refer to the prophets and Christ drank wine, these verses are invalid because these verses were invented and written by unknown writers, in addition to Paul, who destroyed the original doctrine of Christ.

Dear reader, reflect on what the Qur’an said about Christ and his mother, where he said about his pure and chaste mother (42) And @ when the angels said, ""O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds. ) (Al Imran) This is Mary, not Mary, who prepares and distributes wine Dear reader, reflect on what the Qur’an said about Christt, “ (32) And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant. ” (Surat Maryam, verse 32). Do not believe some verses in the Bible that aim to spread corruption by unknown writers whose goal is to destroy the message of the prophets and the message of the Prophet Jesus, peace be upon them;

Dear friend,

Thank you for raising this question with sincerity. Many Muslims and Christians share a deep respect for Jesus (Isa, peace be upon Him in your tradition) and for His mother Mary. I appreciate you engaging with the actual text of the Gospels rather than general claims. I’d like to respond gently and clearly to your main points, because the Gospels do *not* insult or slander Christ—they present the highest view of Him found anywhere: the eternal Word who became flesh, lived a sinless life, performed miracles by God’s power, died for our sins, and rose from the dead.

This is a very common objection, but it does not hold up when we look at the historical and linguistic context.

- In 1st-century Jewish and Mediterranean culture, addressing a woman as “Woman” (*gynai* in Greek) was **not rude or insulting**. It could be neutral, formal, or even affectionate—similar to saying “Dear woman” or “Ma’am.” Jesus uses the exact same word tenderly from the cross while making sure His mother is cared for: “Woman, behold, your son!” (John 19:26), and then entrusts her to the beloved disciple. That is the opposite of disrespect.

- The full phrase “What does this have to do with me and you?” (or “Why do you involve me?”) is a Semitic idiom. It often means “This matter is between us in a special way” or “My time has not yet fully come.” Jesus is gently reminding Mary that His miracles and mission are timed according to the will of the Father, not even at the request of His beloved mother. This is consistent with His entire ministry (see John 7:6–8; 12:27; Mark 1:35–38).

- Most importantly, **Jesus immediately honors her concern** by turning water into wine. The text says this was the *first* of His signs, “and manifested His glory. And His disciples believed in Him” (John 2:11). Far from insulting her, He responds with compassion and divine power. Mary herself shows faith by telling the servants, “Do whatever He tells you” (v. 5). This is a beautiful portrait of mother and Son, not slander.

The Gospels also show Jesus’ perfect obedience as a child (“He was submissive to them” – Luke 2:51) and His lifelong care for His mother. He fulfilled the commandment to honor father and mother perfectly, as He fulfilled the whole Law (Matthew 5:17).

The Bible does **not** teach total prohibition of wine. It strongly condemns **drunkenness** and excess (Proverbs 23:29–35; Ephesians 5:18; Isaiah 5:11, 22—which you quoted correctly against those who are “heroes at drinking wine”). The specific command in Leviticus 10:8–9 was for priests while serving in the Tabernacle, not a universal ban.

Jesus Himself drank wine. His critics accused Him of being “a glutton and a drunkard” (Matthew 11:19) precisely because He ate and drank in normal social settings (in contrast to John the Baptist’s asceticism). The accusation was false—He was sinless—but it proves He was not a teetotaler. At the Last Supper He used wine as the symbol of the new covenant (Matthew 26:27–29), and the early church continued this.

The wedding at Cana was a joyful village celebration. Running out of wine would have been a serious social embarrassment. Jesus provided an abundance of the *best* wine (about 120–180 gallons), bringing joy and revealing His glory. Mary noticed a practical need and turned to her Son. There is no hint she was “supervising the distribution of wine” in any negative or immoral sense. The Qur’an itself calls Mary “chosen… above the women of the worlds” (Surah 3:42)—language that closely echoes the angel’s words in Luke 1:28–42. Christians also honor Mary as blessed among women. Both traditions can agree she was a woman of great faith and purity.

The four Gospels were not written by “unknown writers” trying to destroy the prophets. They come from the apostolic circle or their close associates:
- Matthew and John were among the Twelve.
- Mark recorded Peter’s preaching.
- Luke was a careful historian who investigated eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1–4) and traveled with Paul.

We have thousands of Greek manuscripts, some dating within decades of the events, plus early citations by Church Fathers. The textual transmission is remarkably stable. The core message—Jesus’ miracles, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection—is consistent across all four Gospels, Paul’s letters, and the rest of the New Testament. Paul did not “destroy” Jesus’ teaching; he met the risen Christ and preached the same Gospel the other apostles preached (see 1 Corinthians 15:3–11, where he says he and the other apostles are in complete agreement on the resurrection).

The claim that the Gospels were later corrupted (*tahrif*) is a much later Islamic interpretation. The Qur’an itself repeatedly tells Jews and Christians to judge by their own Scriptures (e.g., Surah 5:47, 5:68) and affirms that the Torah and Gospel were guidance and light at the time of Muhammad. The Qur’an was written 500–600 years after the events, in a different language and culture, and it denies the crucifixion that all early historical sources affirm. Christians believe the Gospels give us the authentic, eyewitness testimony of who Jesus really was and what He taught.

The verse you quoted from Surah Maryam 19:32 (“dutiful to my mother… not a wretched tyrant”) is actually consistent with the Jesus we meet in the Gospels. He was never arrogant or harsh with the weak. At the same time, the Gospels show something even greater: Jesus claimed to be the divine Son of God who forgives sins, is Lord of the Sabbath, and is the only way to the Father (Mark 2:5–12; John 5:18, 8:58, 14:6). He accepted worship. These claims led to His crucifixion—exactly as the prophets foretold (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Daniel 9).

The Gospels are not an insult to Christ. They are a revelation of His glory. The water-into-wine miracle is a picture of the abundant new life He came to bring. The same Jesus who cared for His mother at a wedding later cared for her at the foot of the cross, and who now offers living water that becomes a spring welling up to eternal life (John 4:14).

I would gently encourage you to read the Gospel of John slowly and prayerfully for yourself, in context. Ask God to show you who Jesus really is. Many Muslims who have done so have come to see Him not only as a prophet, but as the Savior who loves them and gave Himself for them.

If you’d like to discuss any of these points further, or look at specific verses together, I’m happy to continue the conversation in a spirit of mutual respect. May God guide us all into truth.

Peace to you in the name of Jesus the Messiah.

 

[rjltrevisan]

The Bible has too many false stories for the crucifixion story to also be taken literally.

Ironically, considering that it was apparently done by the people from whom we have the most records of litteraly every minutiae of every aspect of their doings in that era, no, the Romans didn't record an incredibly influential person being executed and then rising from the dead.

We have accounts of the event that claim to have been dictated by four men (the gospels of Luke, John, Matthew, and Mark) none of which were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus.

We even have the journals of a close friend of Pontius Pilate, which offers no record of the event.
No - there are no other records outside the bible referencing Jesus, the crucifixion or the resurrection. It is claimed that some contemporaneous reference was made to Jesus and his followers by Josephus but there is some scholarly suspicion that these references were added by Christians some time later.

It's funny that the resurrection of a dead man did not make the news of the time, or that nobody made a note of all the tombs opening and the dead wandering the streets as claimed in the bible …. Its almost as it it never happened !

It's impossible that on the Easter event, the dead get out of their tombs and graves and walk around town and nobody writes it down. If either of these had happened, we'd have at least a dozen surviving accounts from those historians. Instead, there are zero.


The bible isn't a record of anything, but some historians say there was a very different story of the crusifiction that the bible fabricated to further their narrative, this account states that this fella Jesus was in fact real, but he was not the son of God,

The bible is not a record of the crucifixion. The first of hundreds of versions of the bible was written a century after the supposed event took place. It is a collection of lore, stories of past times passed to succeeding generations by word of mouth. The bible is a story.


Was Jesus (pbuh) really Crucified? by Dr Zakir Naik

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGzS9sfC8P0&t=25s


Jesus was not crucified according to 1st Century Christians

مسيحي هندي يحاول شرح الثالوث… وينتهي به الأمر في حيرة!

مناظرة ملحمية! الشيخ عثمان في مواجهة طلاب مسيحيين حول الكتاب المقدس والقرآن والتناقضات!

مناظرة مضحكة 2 ضد 1! وعّاظ مسيحيون لم يتوقعوا ما حدث! لا تفوّت المشاهدة!

نهاية النقاش! بعد هذا الطرح… لن يذكروا موضوع سنّ عائشة مرة أخرى! لا تفوّت المشاهدة!

Dear friend,

Thank you for laying out your objections so clearly. Questions about history and evidence matter deeply—Christianity is not a collection of myths but a historical claim that can be examined. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are at the heart of the faith, so it’s fair to test them rigorously. However, many of the statements in your post contain common inaccuracies that don’t align with current historical scholarship (including from non-Christian and agnostic historians). Let me respond point by point with facts.

The New Testament was not written “a century after the event as oral lore.”
- The earliest evidence is in Paul’s letters (written 48–60 AD). In **1 Corinthians 15:3–7** (dated by most scholars to within 2–5 years of the crucifixion, around AD 35–38), Paul passes on a creed he himself received: Christ “died for our sins… was buried… was raised on the third day… and appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve,” to over 500 people at once, to James, and to Paul. This is extremely early eyewitness material.
- The Gospels were written between roughly AD 65–95 (Mark earliest, John latest). That is 30–65 years after the events—within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. They are not anonymous “lore” but biographies in the style of ancient historical writing. Tradition attributes them to two apostles (Matthew and John—eyewitnesses), Peter’s interpreter (Mark), and a careful researcher who interviewed eyewitnesses (Luke—see Luke 1:1–4). Even many critical scholars accept that they contain early, reliable eyewitness testimony (see Richard Bauckham’s *Jesus and the Eyewitnesses*).

The claim that “there are no other records outside the Bible” is simply not true. We have several independent non-Christian references from the 1st and early 2nd centuries:

- Tacitus (Roman historian, *Annals* 15.44, ~AD 115): “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.” Tacitus is hostile to Christians—he calls the movement a “mischievous superstition”—making this strong evidence. He had access to Roman records.
- Flavius Josephus (Jewish historian, *Antiquities* ~AD 93): Two references. The passage about James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ” (20.9.1) is almost universally accepted as authentic. The longer *Testimonium Flavianum* (18.3.3) has some later Christian additions, but the majority of scholars agree it has an authentic core mentioning Jesus as a wise teacher who was crucified under Pilate and whose followers continued afterward.
- Other references: Pliny the Younger (Roman governor, ~AD 112), Suetonius, Mara bar Serapion, and hostile Jewish sources in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a refers to “Yeshu” being hanged on the eve of Passover).

Virtually all historians today—including skeptics like Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, and Gerd Lüdemann—accept as historical facts that Jesus existed, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The crucifixion is one of the most securely established facts of antiquity. Romans did not keep detailed public “execution logs” for every provincial criminal in a backwater like Judea. Crucifixion was common. There were no newspapers. An argument from silence here proves little.

The “journals of a close friend of Pontius Pilate” you mention do not exist in any surviving historical source. If you have a specific document in mind, feel free to share the reference.

The resurrection of Jesus has multiple independent attestations, the empty tomb, the transformation of the disciples from cowards to bold martyrs (most dying for their claim), and the conversion of skeptics like James (Jesus’ brother) and Paul (a former persecutor). These are accepted as “minimal facts” by the majority of scholars across the spectrum (see Gary Habermas and Michael Licona’s *The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus* or N.T. Wright’s *The Resurrection of the Son of God*).

The passage in Matthew 27 about the saints rising is unique to that Gospel and is one of the most difficult texts in the New Testament. Responsible interpretations include:
- A limited, localized event in or around Jerusalem that was not a widespread public spectacle requiring dozens of contemporary historians to record it.
- Apocalyptic/symbolic language (common in Jewish literature) emphasizing the cosmic significance of Jesus’ death, without intending a literal public “zombie” parade.

It is not the central claim. The resurrection appearances of Jesus are attested by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 while many of the 500+ witnesses were still alive to be questioned. If it never happened, it is very hard to explain how Christianity exploded in the very city where Jesus was executed.

The idea that early Christians did not believe Jesus was crucified refers to later **Docetists** and certain Gnostic groups who taught that Jesus only *seemed* to have a physical body. These views were rejected as heresy from the beginning by the apostolic church (see 1 John 4:2–3; Ignatius of Antioch, ~AD 107). The apostles and the churches they founded unanimously taught a real incarnation, real crucifixion, and real bodily resurrection.

The Qur’anic statement that “it was made to appear to them” that Jesus was crucified comes **600 years later** with no chain of transmission back to the events. The substitution or swoon theories create more historical problems than they solve (Roman executioners were brutally efficient; the disciples had nothing to gain by inventing a crucified and risen Messiah that no one was expecting). Dr. Zakir Naik’s presentations are popular, but they do not reflect the broad scholarly consensus on 1st-century history.

The Gospels are not “insults” or “slander” against Christ, nor fabricated centuries later. They preserve the testimony of those who knew Him best and who were willing to die for what they saw. The crucifixion shows the depth of God’s love—He took the punishment we deserve. The resurrection proves He conquered death and offers forgiveness and new life to all who trust in Him.

If these events really happened, they are the most important in history. I encourage you to read the primary sources yourself: the Gospel of Mark or John, Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, and the references in Tacitus and Josephus (in context). Many who have done so with an open heart have encountered the living Jesus.

I’m happy to discuss any specific point, recommend resources, or answer questions in a spirit of respect. Truth matters, and God welcomes honest seekers.

Peace to you.