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.

 

[Muhammad]

Hello rjltrevisan,

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.

Numerous New Testament scholars and theologians have pointed out that the authors of the Gospels are anonymous. For instance, according to the conservative scholar Michael Green: 'We do not know who wrote the Gospel [of Matthew]. Like all the others, it is anonymous... [Second-century writers] do tell us who wrote them, and they may or may not have been right. In the case of Matthew, it is not at all easy to know whether they were right, because there is a major contradiction in the evidence. The external evidence points uniformly in one direction, the internal in another.' (The Message of Matthew: The Kingdom of Heaven, 2001, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 19)

According to the prominent conservative scholar Tom Wright, a favourite of many Christian apologists: 'What do we know about how the Gospels got written? Frustratingly little. We don't have Matthew's diaries of how he went about collecting and arranging his material. We don't know where Mark was written. We don't know whether Luke really was, as is often thought, the companion of Paul. We don't know whether the 'Beloved Disciple', to whom the Fourth Gospel is ascribed (John 21:24), was really 'John' (in which case, which 'John'?) or someone else. None of the books name their authors; all the traditions about who wrote which ones are just that, traditions, from later on in the life of the church (beginning in the first half of the second century, about fifty years after the Gospels were written).' (Tom Wright, The Original Jesus: The Life and Vision of a Revolutionary, 1997, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 126-127)

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.

Manuscript evidence and early citations do not provide historical certainty about the teachings of Jesus عليه السلام. Such texts and statements were shaped by early Christian communities, not dictated by Jesus عليه السلام. So the 'core message' reflects the theological framing of those figures, not the teachings of Jesus. This is in addition to the fact that 94% of manuscripts are dated 800 years after the events, with only a handful of fragmentary manuscripts that can plausibly be dated to the second century.

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).

That is simply Paul's own statements; it is not evidence that the other apostles preached the same Gospel as him. In fact, Paul's own writings reflect how he is constantly defending himself from criticism, for e.g. in Galatians he is sharply reacting to people who question whether he is a real apostle and argue he is not aligned with apostles such as Peter and James. This shows there was serious disagreement about his authority and message.

- 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 dating of 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 is speculative, considering that the timeline of Paul’s conversion is not precisely known and that the earliest his letters were believed to be written was 15-25 years after Jesus عليه السلام left this earth.

You mention 'early eyewitness material', but what you are referring to is a document written by Paul, a man who never knew Jesus and did not ever meet him. Yet he explained Jesus' mission in a way that Jesus عليه السلام 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.

It is only Paul who claims that there were 'over five hundred witnesses' but we have no testimony from any of these five hundred people. None of them ever wrote anything regarding their experiences of what they witnessed and Paul did not indicate who or where those 500 witnesses were in order for the people to go and ask them.

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.

What it seems to illustrate is how later tradition developed Paul’s accounts into the four Gospels, each being very different stories of what they thought Paul probably meant. Hence Matthew gets most carried away, mentioning a midday darkness that was followed by an earthquake and tombs opening up. It is not conceivable that this would go unnoticed by the historians of that time and it also highlights how the ‘resurrection’ accounts contain made up or embellished material.

 

[Muhammad]

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.

I'm afraid you have misunderstood what these verses mean. Whilst the Torah and the Injeel (not the 'Gospel' of today) were originally Revelations from God given to Moses and Jesus عليهما السلام, in which was guidance and light, their respective peoples distorted the Scriptures such that the original teachings are not fully preserved. This fact is made evident in numerous ways - the very same chapter of the Qur'an mentions (interpretation of the meaning):

And from those who say, “We are Christians,” We took their covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they had been commanded to uphold. So We let hostility and enmity arise between them until the Day of Judgment, and soon Allah will inform them of all they have done. O People of the Book! Now Our Messenger has come to you, revealing much of what you have hidden of the Scriptures and disregarding much. There certainly has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book through which Allah guides those who seek His pleasure to the ways of peace, brings them out of darkness and into light by His Will, and guides them to the Straight Path. Indeed, those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have fallen into disbelief... [5: 14-17]

This passage makes it very clear that the previous Scriptures were corrupted and that we are in need of the guidance in the Qur'an. It also provides an example of how Christians distorted their teachings by ascribing divinity to Jesus عليه السلام. So your statement about the corruption of the ‘Gospels’ (assuming you mean the Injeel here) being a 'much later Islamic interpretation' is refuted by this passage alone. Besides, corruption in the Gospels is admitted by Christians themselves.

With this in mind, it becomes obvious that verses such as 5:47 and 5:68 are not validating the Bible and the Torah of today, especially considering the context in which they appear (which is always overlooked by Christians). The Bible today is not regarded as being a revelation given to Jesus عليه السلام (according to Christians themselves), and Christians have no way of knowing 'what Allah revealed in it' except by seeking recourse to the Qur'an. The very next verse after 5:47 highlights the role of the Qur'an as being a 'final authority' over previous Scriptures. If Christians did truly follow what Allah revealed in the Injeel, it would lead them to believe in the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

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.

Appealing to the timespan of 500-600 years here is confusing different types of evidence. The Qur’an is not claimed to have originated at the time of Jesus عليه السلام and passed on from then. Rather, it is divinely revealed by the same All-Knowing God who revealed His Scriptures to Moses and Jesus عليهما السلام. God's Word does not need a 'chain of transmission back to the events'. This is why it surpasses the accuracy of anonymous works compiled decades after Jesus that are far removed from what Jesus عليه السلام actually taught.

As for the crucifixion, the Qur’an tells us that Jesus عليه السلام was not killed or crucified. This does not rule out the possibility that someone else was crucified in his place. Historical sources do not refute this possibility; they simply suggest what people at the time thought had happened. As mentioned above, the Gospels were written by anonymous authors decades after Jesus عليه السلام, so they cannot be considered 'eyewitness testimony'.

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).

There is not a single instance where Jesus عليه السلام unequivocally told people that he is God or to worship him. According to the Bible (Mat 23:37), the Jews stoned and killed many Prophets because they challenged the status quo, confronted idolatry and injustice and reminded people of God's commands. These Prophets, including Jesus عليه السلام, never claimed to be God.

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

Even if they are accepted as 'minimal facts' (which they aren’t universally), a tomb being found empty or the conversion/martyrdom of people do not prove that a resurrection took place.

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.

We don’t have direct writings from most apostles so it is not possible to claim there was 'unanimous' teaching of all apostles. Modern scholarship (including figures like Bart D. Ehrman) emphasises that early Christianity included multiple competing views. Rival interpretations, which at one time had been orthodox, opposed to Paul’s very individual views, later became heretical.

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).

The Qur’an tells us that Jesus عليه السلام taught his people to worship the One true God and that he never claimed divinity for himself or his mother. So to allege that he claimed to be God is among the greatest insults one could make against him. Former Christians have commented that they found the real Jesus عليه السلام through the Qur'an. I invite you to read the Qur'an with an open mind and find the true teachings about Jesus عليه السلام in it.

 

[rjltrevisan]

Dear friend,

Thank you for your detailed, good-faith reply and for quoting conservative scholars like Michael Green and N.T. Wright. I appreciate the engagement. While the Gospels are formally anonymous in the text (no modern-style bylines), this doesn’t undermine their historical value. Green and Wright themselves treat them as early, reliable sources rooted in apostolic testimony. Wright argues in works like *Jesus and the Victory of God* and *The Resurrection of the Son of God* that they give us genuine access to the historical Jesus. The unanimous 2nd-century attributions (Papias ~AD 130, Irenaeus, etc.) link Matthew and John to apostles/eyewitnesses, Mark to Peter’s preaching, and Luke to a careful investigator (see his prologue, Luke 1:1-4). These traditions are earlier and more consistent than for many ancient histories we accept. Richard Bauckham’s *Jesus and the Eyewitnesses* shows embedded eyewitness patterns in names, geography, and style.

On manuscripts: Yes, most of our ~5,800 Greek copies are later, but we have key early ones—P52 (~AD 125-150, John 18), other 2nd-3rd century papyri, Syriac/Latin translations, and abundant Church Father quotes allowing reconstruction of nearly the entire NT. Agnostic Bart Ehrman agrees the core message (Jesus’ teachings, miracles, crucifixion under Pilate, resurrection appearances) is stable; variants are mostly spelling or minor and don’t affect doctrine. These aren’t centuries of free “theological shaping” into legend—the same core appears in Paul’s undisputed letters from the 50s AD.

Paul didn’t invent a new faith. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 he explicitly says the other apostles preached the *same* gospel he did (“whether I or they, this is what we preach”). The creed in vv. 3-7 uses formal rabbinic language (“delivered/received”), Aramaic names (Cephas), and is dated by the vast majority of scholars (including skeptics like Ehrman, Crossan, Lüdemann) to AD 33-38—within 2-5 years of the crucifixion. This is based on its pre-Pauline form, not just his conversion timeline. Galatians shows real tension, but it was over Gentile circumcision/Law-keeping, *not* the resurrection or core gospel. In Galatians 2:1-10, Peter, James, and John “added nothing” to Paul’s message, gave him “the right hand of fellowship,” and affirmed his calling. Acts 15 records the same unity. Peter and John *did* write (1-2 Peter; John’s Gospel, letters)—aligning with the same message of a crucified-and-risen Messiah.

The “500 witnesses” appear in a public letter to a church whose members could have challenged Paul if false. Most were ordinary people, not writers; we wouldn’t expect individual memoirs in that era. Paul appeals to living memory, not myth in a vacuum.

Matthew 27:52-53 is unique and difficult—one of the strangest in the NT. Scholars offer interpretations: a localized event, apocalyptic Jewish imagery conveying Jesus’ death’s cosmic impact (like the darkness in all Gospels), or stylized history. It’s *not* central evidence. The key facts—crucifixion under Pilate, empty tomb, sincere belief in appearances to skeptics (James, Paul), disciples’ transformation from cowards to martyrs—are multiply attested and accepted by a wide scholarly consensus (see Habermas/Licona’s “minimal facts” or Wright’s 800-page study concluding God raised Jesus).

Virtually all historians (believers or not) affirm Jesus existed, was baptized by John, taught, and was crucified. Romans didn’t log every provincial execution in detail; crucifixion was routine. Extra-biblical mentions exist: Tacitus (*Annals* 15.44), Josephus (authentic core in *Antiquities* 18 & 20), Pliny, Talmud. The Qur’an’s denial (Surah 4:157) is 600 years later, with no 1st-century chain. Early Jewish Christians had no motive to fabricate a crucified Messiah—it was scandalous. They suffered for this claim.

The Gospels aren’t later fabrications or insults to Jesus (pbuh in your tradition). They preserve eyewitness testimony to God’s love: the sinless Messiah dying for us, rising victoriously, offering forgiveness to all. I encourage reading Wright’s *The Original Jesus* (which you quoted) alongside his fuller case, or the Gospel of John itself.

Happy to continue on any point. May the God of truth guide us both.

Peace,
rjltrevisan

 

[rjltrevisan]

Dear friend,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and direct engagement with the Qur’an and scholarship. I respect your desire to honor Jesus (Isa عليه السلام). Let’s address your points with clarity and evidence.

Surah 5:14–17 criticizes some Christians for neglecting commands and for the error of saying “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary” (a modal confusion Christians reject—we affirm Jesus *is* the Messiah and divine Son, not that God is identical to the man in a way that erases distinction). It rebukes *misinterpretation and neglect*, not universal textual corruption of all copies. The Qur’an repeatedly treats the Torah and Gospel *as they existed in Muhammad’s day* as still containing guidance and light: “Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah revealed therein” (5:47); “Stand fast by the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you” (5:68). These commands make little sense if those books were wholly corrupted and unknowable. The Injeel is what Jesus taught and embodied—precisely what the four Gospels preserve: His miracles, teachings, death for sins, and resurrection (1 Cor 15:3–4). The full Islamic doctrine of *textual* tahrif (wholesale alteration of words) developed centuries later (e.g., Ibn Hazm, 11th cent.), not plainly from the Qur’an itself. If the 7th-century Bible was already hopelessly distorted, why direct Christians to it? Verse 5:48 presents the Qur’an as confirmation and criterion, but this does not erase the earlier affirmation of prior Scriptures. Christians read the *same* books today that existed then—books that clearly teach Jesus’ crucifixion (Mark 15; 1 Cor 15) and divinity.

The Qur’an claims divine revelation, so its authority is theological for Muslims. Yet its historical claims (e.g., 4:157—“it appeared to them” that Jesus was crucified; someone else in his place) can be tested against 1st-century evidence. It comes 600 years later, in a different language and region, with no chain of transmission from Jerusalem eyewitnesses. By contrast, Jesus’ crucifixion under Pilate is one of the most secure facts in ancient history, attested across *all* early sources: Paul’s letters (AD 50s, with a creed from AD 33–38), all four Gospels, Josephus (*Antiquities* 18 & 20—authentic core accepted by most scholars), Tacitus (*Annals* 15.44), the Talmud, and hostile Roman/Jewish writers. These are not “what people thought”—they are independent, multiply attested reports from within decades. A substitution theory creates bigger problems: Who was crucified? Why did Jesus’ closest disciples (devout Jews expecting a conquering Messiah) unanimously proclaim a *crucified* and risen one (a scandal—1 Cor 1:23)? Why no ancient record of the switch? Roman executioners were efficient; the spear thrust confirmed death (John 19:34).

The Gospels are not dismissible as “anonymous works compiled decades after” with no link to eyewitnesses. Strong early church tradition (Papias ~AD 130, Irenaeus) connects them to the apostolic circle: Matthew/John as eyewitness apostles, Mark as Peter’s interpreter, Luke as a careful historian interviewing eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1–4). Even critical scholars date Mark ~AD 65–70 using earlier sources. Richard Bauckham’s *Jesus and the Eyewitnesses* demonstrates embedded eyewitness traits in naming, geography, and style. Paul’s pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor 15:3–7) lists named appearances (Peter, James, the 500—many still alive for verification) within 2–5 years of the events. This is extremely early eyewitness material, not later legend.

Jesus made unique claims His contemporaries understood as divine, leading to blasphemy charges:
- Mark 2:5–12: Forgives sins (God’s sole prerogative). Scribes ask, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
- John 8:58: “Before Abraham was born, I am” (echoing God’s name in Ex 3:14). They tried to stone Him.
- John 5:18: “He was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.”
- John 20:28: Accepts Thomas’s worship: “My Lord and my God!”
- Matt 28:9,17; 14:33: Receives worship without correction.
- John 14:6: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

These (plus Daniel 7:13–14 imagery at His trial, Mark 14:61–64) go beyond any prophet. Prophets died for many reasons, but Jesus was specifically executed for claiming to be the divine Son of Man seated at God’s right hand. This is not an insult—it is the Gospels’ revelation of His glory: the eternal Word made flesh (John 1:1,14) who loves sinners enough to die in their place. The Qur’an’s denial of His divinity, while reverent in intent, differs from the earliest Jewish sources closest to the events.

The “minimal facts” (crucifixion under Pilate, empty tomb, sincere post-mortem appearances to skeptics like James and Paul, disciples’ transformation from cowards to martyrs willing to die for their claim) are granted by the *broad majority* of scholars across viewpoints (see Gary Habermas’s documentation; even Bart Ehrman accepts crucifixion, burial, and sincere belief in appearances). In 1st-century Jewish context—where resurrection before the end of history was unexpected for one individual—the best explanation is what they claimed: God raised Jesus bodily. Empty tomb + group appearances aren’t explained by hallucination (which is individual) or legend (which takes generations; this exploded in Jerusalem within weeks).

Early Christianity had diversity—Ehrman rightly notes competing views. Yet the core apostolic witness (real incarnation, bodily crucifixion, physical resurrection) has the earliest attestation: Paul’s undisputed letters, the four Gospels, pre-Pauline creeds, and writers like Ignatius (~AD 107) and Clement. Docetism/Gnostic ideas (Jesus only “seemed” physical) arose later (mid-2nd cent.) and were rejected because they contradicted eyewitness testimony (1 John 4:2–3: “Jesus Christ has come *in the flesh*”). The unified apostolic teaching won because it was rooted in what they saw.

The Qur’an’s portrait of Jesus as a prophet who never claimed divinity is sincere, but the 1st-century sources paint a greater picture: the Messiah who offers living water (John 4:14), rest for the weary (Matt 11:28), and eternal life through His death and resurrection. Many have read the Qur’an and then encountered this Jesus in the Gospels.

I invite you to read the Gospel of John in context, asking the God of truth to guide you. N.T. Wright’s *The Resurrection of the Son of God* or *Simply Jesus* would engage your questions fairly. Truth matters—let’s pursue it together.

May He lead us both closer to Him.

Peace in Christ,
rjltrevisan

 

[Muhammad]

Hello rjltrevisan,

While the Gospels are formally anonymous in the text (no modern-style bylines), this doesn’t undermine their historical value. Green and Wright themselves treat them as early, reliable sources rooted in apostolic testimony. Wright argues in works like *Jesus and the Victory of God* and *The Resurrection of the Son of God* that they give us genuine access to the historical Jesus. The unanimous 2nd-century attributions (Papias ~AD 130, Irenaeus, etc.) link Matthew and John to apostles/eyewitnesses, Mark to Peter’s preaching, and Luke to a careful investigator (see his prologue, Luke 1:1-4). These traditions are earlier and more consistent than for many ancient histories we accept. Richard Bauckham’s *Jesus and the Eyewitnesses* shows embedded eyewitness patterns in names, geography, and style.

Although they are early sources and may have historical value, we cannot escape the fact that anonymity of the authors cannot give us 'genuine access' to the historical Jesus. One of the things that Wright stresses is that the Gospels are theologically shaped narratives, not neutral chronicles. So the question of whose interpretation and narrative shaping what we are reading is vital, and the absence of such information does undermine the credibility of these sources.

The attributions linked to Papias and Irenaeus are overstated. Such 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 and the attributions appear decades (up to a century) after the Gospels were written, not alongside them. Calling them 'unanimous' is farfetched because we don't have a wide range of competing attributions preserved, so the absence of disagreement in surviving texts doesn’t equal universal agreement.

Finding patterns in names, geography and style is what you would expect from traditions circulating in that culture, not necessarily from direct eyewitness writing.

On manuscripts: Yes, most of our ~5,800 Greek copies are later, but we have key early ones—P52 (~AD 125-150, John 18), other 2nd-3rd century papyri, Syriac/Latin translations, and abundant Church Father quotes allowing reconstruction of nearly the entire NT. Agnostic Bart Ehrman agrees the core message (Jesus’ teachings, miracles, crucifixion under Pilate, resurrection appearances) is stable; variants are mostly spelling or minor and don’t affect doctrine. These aren’t centuries of free “theological shaping” into legend—the same core appears in Paul’s undisputed letters from the 50s AD.

In the words of Bart Ehrman, 'We have only a handful of manuscripts, at best, that can plausibly be dated to the second century. These are all *highly* fragmentary (the oldest is just a scrap with a few verses on it). And even these are decades after the authors were all dead and buried.’ He also mentions, 'Most of the textual changes that we find in later manuscripts were first made in these earliest copies (specialists usually maintain that most of our textual alterations were made before the year 300 CE)'.

We can therefore see that the quality of manuscript evidence (including early papyri) is very poor and according to Christian scholars, those earliest manuscripts occurred at the time of most corruption. For instance, D. Parker contends that the most substantial alterations in the text of the Gospels happened in the first hundred and fifty years, describing it as an “initial fluidity followed by stability.” He studied the sayings of Jesus on marriage and divorce and the Lord's Prayer in the Gospels, then concluded, “The main result of this survey is to show that the recovery of a single original saying of Jesus is impossible [. . .] What we have is a collection of interpretive rewritings of a tradition.” [David C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels, p.70]

Kenneth W. Clark concluded in his study on the P75 that this papyrus (early third century) “vividly portrays a fluid state of the text at about A. D. 200.” And that “such a scribal freedom suggests that the Gospel text was little more stable than the oral tradition, and that we may be pursuing the retreating mirage of the “original text.” [Kenneth W. Clark, “The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament,“ in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 85, No. 1 (Mar., 1966), p.15]

Paul didn’t invent a new faith. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 he explicitly says the other apostles preached the *same* gospel he did (“whether I or they, this is what we preach”). The creed in vv. 3-7 uses formal rabbinic language (“delivered/received”), Aramaic names (Cephas), and is dated by the vast majority of scholars (including skeptics like Ehrman, Crossan, Lüdemann) to AD 33-38—within 2-5 years of the crucifixion. This is based on its pre-Pauline form, not just his conversion timeline. Galatians shows real tension, but it was over Gentile circumcision/Law-keeping, *not* the resurrection or core gospel. In Galatians 2:1-10, Peter, James, and John “added nothing” to Paul’s message, gave him “the right hand of fellowship,” and affirmed his calling. Acts 15 records the same unity. Peter and John *did* write (1-2 Peter; John’s Gospel, letters)—aligning with the same message of a crucified-and-risen Messiah.

Paul is describing his own interactions with other apostles and is defending his authority and message. So what we have is a self-reported testimony from the very person whose position is at stake, who has clear incentives to legitimise his mission. We don't have an independent verification from the apostles. The fact that he uses rabbinical language to forward his cause (or Aramaic names) is unsurprising because, prior to his conversion, he was a highly trained Pharisee rabbi, learned in all the intricacies of the rabbinical commentaries on scripture and legal traditions. Even though this dispute in Galatians was over law-keeping, Paul frames it as affecting 'the truth of the Gospel' (Gal 2:14) and saw Peter's view as a major assault on his understanding of salvation.

The dating of 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a 'pre-existing creed' circulating 2-5 years after the events is a matter of speculation. Paul actually wrote it around 20 years later and it is also a matter of speculation as to where he got his information from since he doesn't actually mention that he got it from the apostles or eyewitnesses. As a side point, if Peter and James came up with this creed, why would they mention 'twelve' apostles instead of 'eleven'? Even if Paul didn’t know about Judas, they certainly would have. Another point to note is there weren't 'church creeds' back then. Every church had it’s own ways of thinking, believing, and saying things - nothing at all like a uniform liturgy until centuries later.

It is not known for certain whether Peter is the actual author of 1 and 2 Peter, just as the author of John is debated. Bart Ehrman believes all of the Petrine works are 'forged' and that each was written by a different author claiming to be Peter.

The “500 witnesses” appear in a public letter to a church whose members could have challenged Paul if false. Most were ordinary people, not writers; we wouldn’t expect individual memoirs in that era. Paul appeals to living memory, not myth in a vacuum.

Perhaps they did challenge him, but this may have proven difficult if the events took place 800km away in Jerusalem. Due to scarcity of other sources we simply do not know.

 

[Muhammad]

Matthew 27:52-53 is unique and difficult—one of the strangest in the NT. Scholars offer interpretations: a localized event, apocalyptic Jewish imagery conveying Jesus’ death’s cosmic impact (like the darkness in all Gospels), or stylized history. It’s *not* central evidence. The key facts—crucifixion under Pilate, empty tomb, sincere belief in appearances to skeptics (James, Paul), disciples’ transformation from cowards to martyrs—are multiply attested and accepted by a wide scholarly consensus (see Habermas/Licona’s “minimal facts” or Wright’s 800-page study concluding God raised Jesus).

I find it strange you argue it is not central evidence, when Matthew is one of the four canonical Gospels which you were earlier stating is among 'early, reliable sources rooted in apostolic testimony'. Again, what you mention of 'key facts' does not prove that a resurrection actually took place.

Virtually all historians (believers or not) affirm Jesus existed, was baptized by John, taught, and was crucified. Romans didn’t log every provincial execution in detail; crucifixion was routine. Extra-biblical mentions exist: Tacitus (*Annals* 15.44), Josephus (authentic core in *Antiquities* 18 & 20), Pliny, Talmud. The Qur’an’s denial (Surah 4:157) is 600 years later, with no 1st-century chain. Early Jewish Christians had no motive to fabricate a crucified Messiah—it was scandalous. They suffered for this claim.

Muslims believe that Jesus existed, taught but was not killed or crucified. As I mentioned earlier, reports about the crucifixion, even if true, do not refute the Islamic narrative because if someone else was made to appear as Jesus, onlookers would not have known the difference.

The Qur'an is a Revelation given to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ; it is not claimed to date back to the first century through a chain of people.

Unfortunately there are often motives for starting new sects and groups which have occurred throughout history, take Mormonism for example.

A substitution theory creates bigger problems: Who was crucified? Why did Jesus’ closest disciples (devout Jews expecting a conquering Messiah) unanimously proclaim a *crucified* and risen one (a scandal—1 Cor 1:23)? Why no ancient record of the switch? Roman executioners were efficient; the spear thrust confirmed death (John 19:34).

Certain individuals have been suggested for the identity of the one who was crucified, but such detail is neither important nor does it pose a problem. The key fact that we need to know is that Jesus was not killed or crucified, which is sufficient. As for what is quoted in Corinthians or John, it relates back to the wider issue of whether the Bible is a trustworthy source of evidence and until such can be proven, we can't use its statements as evidence. The absence of an ancient record of the switch is unsurprising because we are not told that it was public knowledge.

Surah 5:14–17 criticizes some Christians for neglecting commands and for the error of saying “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary” (a modal confusion Christians reject—we affirm Jesus *is* the Messiah and divine Son, not that God is identical to the man in a way that erases distinction). It rebukes *misinterpretation and neglect*, not universal textual corruption of all copies.

Tahrif is not limited to textual corruption, it can also apply to misinterpretation; both forms have occurred in the previous Scriptures.

Even if Christians do not explicitly state the claim 'Allah is the Messiah' (and it is argued that some sects do), Christians do believe that Jesus is divine and do worship him and still call him God, so the doctrine functionally collapses into identification, even if it tries to avoid saying it outright.

The Qur’an repeatedly treats the Torah and Gospel *as they existed in Muhammad’s day* as still containing guidance and light: “Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah revealed therein” (5:47); “Stand fast by the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you” (5:68). These commands make little sense if those books were wholly corrupted and unknowable.

The main problem when Christians put forth these arguments is that they fail to identify and understand how the Qur'an uses the terms Torah and Injeel. The Qur'an makes it clear that whilst the Torah and Injeel were originally Revelations from God, they have been distorted. So in verses like 5:68, what is meant by the Torah and Injeel is to establish them as revealed by Allah; the verses are not referring to what is falsified, changed or abrogated.

Furthermore, the fact that the Torah and the Injeel have been falsified does not mean that each and every word in them was falsified. Allah gave glad tidings of the coming of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in the Torah and the Injeel, and ordered them to believe in him, follow him and support him (see verses 7:157 and 61:6 of the Qur'an). Therefore, if Jews and Christians actually did uphold what was revealed by Allah in these Scriptures, it would lead them to believe in the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. The Qur'an invites the People of the Book to Islam by asking them to recognise the veracity of the Message which is a completion of their own texts.

Another important point is that the only way to judge by the Injeel is through the Qur'an and acceptance of Prophet Muhammad's message ﷺ. This is because the Qur'an was sent down affirming its original message and is a protector over it. This is emphasized in verse 5:48.

The Injeel is what Jesus taught and embodied—precisely what the four Gospels preserve: His miracles, teachings, death for sins, and resurrection (1 Cor 15:3–4).

The Injeel is not the same as the Gospels, because even according to Christians, the Gospels were written about Jesus decades later; they are not the Revelation that was given to him which is what the Qur'an refers to (5:46). The only way to know whether truth has been preserved in the Gospels is to confer to the Qur'an, which bears witness to what Allah revealed in the Injeel and exposes what people falsely entered into and removed from it.

The full Islamic doctrine of *textual* tahrif (wholesale alteration of words) developed centuries later (e.g., Ibn Hazm, 11th cent.), not plainly from the Qur’an itself.

From the last few points the error of your statement should be obvious. It's also worth noting the following:

Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614:

Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah:

'Abdullah bin 'Abbas said, "O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah's Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, 'This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won't the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur'an ) which has been revealed to you.

Ibn Hazm describes the above narrations as: The soundest Isnad (chain of transmission) or ascription to Ibn Abbas, which is exactly our view. There is no difference between the companions on this matter. (Ibn Hazm, Al-Fasl fi'l Milal, Volume 2, p. 3)

Here we see that Ibn Hazm did not develop a new doctrine 'centuries later', rather he reinforces the view held by a Companion of the Prophet ﷺ, showing that even the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ held the same position as well.

 

[Muhammad]

Jesus made unique claims His contemporaries understood as divine, leading to blasphemy charges:

I am familiar with these but notice how none of them involve Jesus clearly saying he is God, as opposed to the Old Testament which is very clear on the matter of who God is e.g. 'I am God Almighty' (Gen 17:1). Even the imagery in Daniel which is often cited by Christians doesn't prove anything about Jesus. To the contrary, there are many passages in the Gospels where Jesus is saying he is not God and that all of his authority came from 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)

The “minimal facts” (crucifixion under Pilate, empty tomb, sincere post-mortem appearances to skeptics like James and Paul, disciples’ transformation from cowards to martyrs willing to die for their claim) are granted by the *broad majority* of scholars across viewpoints (see Gary Habermas’s documentation; even Bart Ehrman accepts crucifixion, burial, and sincere belief in appearances). In 1st-century Jewish context—where resurrection before the end of history was unexpected for one individual—the best explanation is what they claimed: God raised Jesus bodily. Empty tomb + group appearances aren’t explained by hallucination (which is individual) or legend (which takes generations; this exploded in Jerusalem within weeks).

These are mere assumptions and also involves circular reasoning because you are basically claiming that the alleged resurrection happened because the Bible says so, yet we don't agree that the Bible is a reliable evidence.

Early Christianity had diversity—Ehrman rightly notes competing views. Yet the core apostolic witness (real incarnation, bodily crucifixion, physical resurrection) has the earliest attestation: Paul’s undisputed letters, the four Gospels, pre-Pauline creeds, and writers like Ignatius (~AD 107) and Clement. Docetism/Gnostic ideas (Jesus only “seemed” physical) arose later (mid-2nd cent.) and were rejected because they contradicted eyewitness testimony (1 John 4:2–3: “Jesus Christ has come *in the flesh*”). The unified apostolic teaching won because it was rooted in what they saw.

There is no 'core apostolic witness' when none of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, Paul was not an eyewitness, the Gospels were written decades later and by anonymous authors and Ignatius and Clement were writing almost a century later. You quote from John but those words actually suggest divergent views existed quite early, even if they weren't full developed systems. His Gospel is the latest and by this time rival beliefs were gaining popularity, so his work functions as a response and theological refinement of existing narratives and divergent views.

Likewise, there is no 'unified apostolic teaching' because early Christianity was not uniform. Even within the New Testament we see tensions between Paul and other groups, different emphases in different Gospels, disputes over law, authority and interpretation. Modern studies on the beginnings of Christianity show that Paul's teachings were not readily accepted. From the time Jesus left earth to the second half of the second century, there was a struggle between different factions. It was only very slowly and due to complex factors including political strength that Pauline Christianity gained the upper hand.

According to Bart Ehrman, 'the orthodox position to these views was not only read out of the texts of Scripture, it was also read into them—commonly in the process of interpretation, and occasionally in the process of transmission.' He also goes on to say, 'In all of these textual modifications, great or small, we can detect the anonymous workings of proto orthodox scribes, unnamed Christians who were very much involved in the conflicts and struggles of their day. Despite the slight attention afforded these combatants in modern scholarship, the alterations they made in the text of the New Testament prove to be significant, not only in revealing the orthodox Christology in its early stages, but also in showing how this Christology came to be cemented in the evolving Christian tradition and thereby endowed with canonical authority.' [Orthodox corruption of Scripture, pp. 241-242]

 

[rjltrevisan]

Dear Muhammad,

Thank you for your detailed and respectful reply. You raise fair questions about sources, and I appreciate you engaging Wright, Ehrman, Parker, and Clark directly. We agree the Gospels are theologically shaped narratives proclaiming Jesus as Messiah and Lord, not neutral modern reports. Wright, however, concludes they still give us reliable access to the *real* historical Jesus, not a later invention (*Jesus and the Victory of God*; *The Resurrection of the Son of God*). Theological intent does not equal fabrication—many ancient biographies (e.g., Plutarch) interpret while preserving core events.

Anonymity in the manuscripts is common for ancient works and does not negate value when external evidence converges. The 2nd-century attributions (Papias ~AD 130 linking Mark to Peter and Matthew to the apostle; Irenaeus ~AD 180 confirming the four) are the earliest we have and consistent across distant regions (Asia Minor, Rome, Gaul). No rival authorship traditions circulated in the orthodox churches, unlike Gnostic writings. “Unanimous” in scholarship means no ancient dissent survives despite abundant patristic literature. These are not “just beliefs”—they are explicit historical claims from writers close to the apostolic age. Bauckham’s *Jesus and the Eyewitnesses* shows the name and geography patterns are *distinctive* (unnecessary details that drop off in later apocrypha), fitting eyewitness sourcing in a culture that valued careful oral transmission (rabbinic techniques preserved teaching accurately for generations).

On manuscripts: Ehrman rightly notes the earliest papyri are few and fragmentary (P52 is tiny). Yet the *same* Ehrman affirms we can reconstruct the NT text with 99%+ confidence for all major doctrines, and the core historical portrait—Jesus as teacher and miracle-worker, crucified under Pilate, disciples claiming appearances—is stable from Paul’s letters (AD 50s) onward (*Did Jesus Exist?*). Parker and Clark correctly describe “initial fluidity” before ~AD 300 (mostly harmonizations, stylistic changes, or interpretive expansions of sayings). However, this fluidity was not wholesale invention of the crucifixion, empty tomb, or resurrection. The Lord’s Prayer and divorce sayings show variation in wording, but the *substance* remains. By the early 3rd century the text had stabilized remarkably. We possess far more manuscript evidence for the NT (5,800+ Greek copies, early versions, patristic citations) than for any other ancient document. It is not a “retreating mirage”—critical editions (NA28) reliably reflect the apostolic-era content for historical essentials.

On Paul and 1 Corinthians 15:3–7: The vast majority of scholars (including skeptics Ehrman, Crossan, Lüdemann) date the *pre-Pauline creed* to AD 33–38 (2–5 years after the crucifixion) due to its formal rabbinic phrasing (“delivered… received”), Aramaic name (“Cephas”), and non-Pauline theology. Paul wrote ~AD 55 but states he “received” what he “passed on”—standard transmission language. He met Peter and James within 3–5 years (Galatians 1–2; Acts 15) and reports their approval. The creed is not “speculation”; it is consensus in critical scholarship. The “Twelve” is a fixed title for the apostolic band (used in the Gospels even post-Judas; Matthias replaced him—Acts 1:26). Early churches shared common traditions quickly via traveling teachers; Paul appeals to shared memory in a public letter. Galatians’ dispute was indeed over law and table fellowship, which Paul saw as threatening “the truth of the gospel” (2:14) because it added requirements to grace. Yet on the resurrection they agreed (1 Cor 15:11—“whether I or they, so we preach”).

Authorship of 1–2 Peter and John is debated (Ehrman calls them pseudonymous). Many scholars (including Bauckham) defend Petrine authorship or close associates writing in his name, consistent with ancient practice. Even if later, they reflect early apostolic streams, not contradiction of Paul.

The 500 witnesses: Paul names verifiable individuals (Peter, James, the Twelve) in a letter to a church with travel links to Judea. Fabricating this ~AD 55, while opponents and eyewitnesses lived, would invite easy refutation. Distance (Jerusalem ~800km from Corinth) was traversable; early Christian networks were mobile. Scarcity of sources is real, yet we have *more* independent attestation for Jesus’ crucifixion than for most 1st-century Galileans (Tacitus, Josephus, Talmud, Paul, all Gospels).

Despite these debates, the scholarly consensus is robust: Jesus was crucified under Pilate (virtually undisputed), His tomb found empty, disciples sincerely believed they met Him risen, and this transformed them into bold witnesses willing to die. The best explanation remains what they proclaimed from the beginning.

The Gospels reveal Jesus’ glory, not insult: the obedient Son honoring His mother (John 19:26-27), offering living water and rest (John 4:14; Matt 11:28), dying for sins as Isaiah 53 foretold, and rising. I still recommend reading the Gospel of John in context, or Wright’s *The Original Jesus* (which you quoted earlier). Many have encountered the historical Jesus there.

Happy to focus on any one point next. May the God of truth guide us both.

Peace in Christ,
rjltrevisan

 

[rjltrevisan]

Dear Muhammad,

Thank you once more for your respectful and detailed response. I value this exchange. Let me reply directly and concisely to your points.

The Gospels are reliable ancient biographies, but Matthew 27:52–53 is unique, uses apocalyptic Jewish imagery (like the darkness in all Gospels), and is not the central claim. Scholars interpret it as localized, symbolic of cosmic impact, or stylized. The “minimal facts” (Habermas/Licona) accepted by the broad majority of historians—even skeptics like Ehrman—are: crucifixion under Pilate, empty tomb, sincere belief in appearances to skeptics (James, Paul), and disciples’ transformation from cowards to martyrs. These are multiply attested very early. In 1st-century Jewish expectation (no individual resurrection before the end), the best explanation is what they proclaimed: God raised Jesus bodily. Empty tomb + group appearances are not explained by hallucination or rapid legend.

We agree Jesus existed, taught, and did miracles. The Qur’an’s claim (4:157) that “it appeared to them” comes 600 years later without 1st-century Jerusalem transmission. All earliest independent sources affirm actual crucifixion: Paul’s pre-Pauline creed (AD 33–38), four Gospels, Josephus (authentic core), Tacitus, Talmud. These are within decades, not “what people thought.” Substitution raises historical difficulties: Roman execution was professional (spear thrust confirmed death, John 19:34); why would devout Jews expecting a conquering Messiah invent a crucified one (scandal per 1 Cor 1:23 and Deut 21:23) and die for it? No record of a switch exists because the unanimous testimony is that Jesus died. Mormonism shows new movements arise, but the disciples gained only persecution. They had every reason *not* to proclaim a crucified Messiah unless the events compelled them.

We can test the Bible’s trustworthiness by the same historical standards we apply to any ancient document. It has far more manuscript evidence and early attestation than comparable texts.

Tahrif includes misinterpretation, yes. Surah 5:14–17 rebukes specific errors (neglect; saying “Allah is the Messiah”—a formulation Christians reject, though we affirm Jesus as divine Son and Messiah). Yet the Qur’an repeatedly tells 7th-century Christians to judge by the Gospel *they actually possessed* (5:47, 5:68). These commands imply sufficient truth remained. The Injeel is the revelation given to Jesus (5:46). Christians hold the four Gospels preserve it reliably through apostolic eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1–4; early tradition via Papias, Irenaeus). They are not “written decades later as disconnected lore” but biographies drawing on immediate sources. We do not need the Qur’an as final filter to know the Injeel; historical evidence suffices. Verses like 7:157 and 61:6 are later Islamic readings; the texts in context do not clearly predict Muhammad.

The Bukhari hadith (via Ibn Abbas) and Ibn Hazm show an early Islamic view of distortion. However, this sits in tension with the Qur’an’s own instructions to Christians to follow their Scriptures. The comprehensive textual tahrif doctrine developed over time; the Qur’an itself never quotes a different Injeel or lists altered verses.

The earliest evidence (far closer than the 7th century) shows Jesus making divine claims His audience understood as such: forgiving sins (Mark 2:5–12), “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), accepting worship (John 20:28), claiming equality with the Father (John 5:18). These led to His crucifixion—exactly as Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and Daniel 7 foretold. This is not an insult to Jesus but revelation of His glory: the obedient Son who honored His mother (John 19:26–27), turned water to wine in compassion, offers living water and rest (John 4:14; Matt 11:28), died for our sins, and rose.

I invite you to read the Gospel of John slowly and in full context, asking the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus to guide you. N.T. Wright’s *Simply Jesus* or *The Resurrection of the Son of God* addresses these historical questions fairly. Many who started with the Qur’an have encountered in the Gospels the Jesus who loves us enough to lay down His life.

May the All-Knowing One lead us both into truth.

Peace in Christ

 

[rjltrevisan]

I am familiar with these but notice how none of them involve Jesus clearly saying he is God, as opposed to the Old Testament which is very clear on the matter of who God is e.g. 'I am God Almighty' (Gen 17:1). Even the imagery in Daniel which is often cited by Christians doesn't prove anything about Jesus. To the contrary, there are many passages in the Gospels where Jesus is saying he is not God and that all of his authority came from 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)

These are mere assumptions and also involves circular reasoning because you are basically claiming that the alleged resurrection happened because the Bible says so, yet we don't agree that the Bible is a reliable evidence.

There is no 'core apostolic witness' when none of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, Paul was not an eyewitness, the Gospels were written decades later and by anonymous authors and Ignatius and Clement were writing almost a century later. You quote from John but those words actually suggest divergent views existed quite early, even if they weren't full developed systems. His Gospel is the latest and by this time rival beliefs were gaining popularity, so his work functions as a response and theological refinement of existing narratives and divergent views.

Likewise, there is no 'unified apostolic teaching' because early Christianity was not uniform. Even within the New Testament we see tensions between Paul and other groups, different emphases in different Gospels, disputes over law, authority and interpretation. Modern studies on the beginnings of Christianity show that Paul's teachings were not readily accepted. From the time Jesus left earth to the second half of the second century, there was a struggle between different factions. It was only very slowly and due to complex factors including political strength that Pauline Christianity gained the upper hand.

According to Bart Ehrman, 'the orthodox position to these views was not only read out of the texts of Scripture, it was also read into them—commonly in the process of interpretation, and occasionally in the process of transmission.' He also goes on to say, 'In all of these textual modifications, great or small, we can detect the anonymous workings of proto orthodox scribes, unnamed Christians who were very much involved in the conflicts and struggles of their day. Despite the slight attention afforded these combatants in modern scholarship, the alterations they made in the text of the New Testament prove to be significant, not only in revealing the orthodox Christology in its early stages, but also in showing how this Christology came to be cemented in the evolving Christian tradition and thereby endowed with canonical authority.' [Orthodox corruption of Scripture, pp. 241-242]

Dear Muhammad,

Thank you again for your thoughtful reply and for listing those verses directly. I appreciate the honest engagement. Let me respond point by point with respect.

The verses you cite (John 14:28, 5:19, 5:30, Mark 12:29, 13:32, etc.) are important. Christians affirm Jesus’ full humanity and voluntary functional submission to the Father during His incarnation (the “economic Trinity”). He lived as a real man, dependent on the Father in His earthly mission. This does not deny His deity. The same Jesus also made extraordinary claims His Jewish audience understood as divine, leading to blasphemy charges:

- Mark 2:5–12: Forgives sins — a prerogative the scribes correctly say belongs to God alone.
- John 8:58: “Before Abraham was born, I am” — echoing God’s name in Exodus 3:14. They tried to stone Him.
- John 5:18: The Jews sought to kill Him because He “was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.”
- John 20:28: Accepts Thomas calling Him “My Lord and my God!”
- Matthew 28:17; 14:33: Receives worship without correction.
- Mark 14:61–64: Claims to be the divine Son of Man from Daniel 7:13–14 who sits at God’s right hand.

These go far beyond any prophet. The OT is clear that God is one (Deut 6:4 — which Jesus affirms in Mark 12:29), yet the same Scriptures show plurality within God’s unity (Gen 1:26, 19:24; Ps 110:1; Isa 9:6, 7:14). Jesus fulfills this. His subordination statements reflect His incarnate role, not inferiority of nature (see Phil 2:5–8; John 1:1, 1:14, 10:30).

The minimal facts approach is not circular. It starts with data granted by the *broad majority of scholars* (including non-Christians like Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and Gerd Lüdemann) using standard historical criteria: multiple independent attestation, principle of embarrassment, early dating, and enemy attestation. These include: crucifixion under Pilate (undisputed), sincere belief by disciples and skeptics (James, Paul) that they saw the risen Jesus, empty tomb reports, and the disciples’ transformation into martyrs. The *explanation* for these facts is then debated. In 1st-century Jewish context (resurrection expected only at the end of history, never for one individual, and a crucified Messiah was a scandal), the best explanation remains what they claimed from the beginning: God raised Jesus bodily. Hallucinations don’t explain the empty tomb or group appearances. Legend takes centuries; this belief appeared in Jerusalem within weeks.

Early Christianity did have diversity and debates — Ehrman is right about that. However, the core apostolic witness to real incarnation, bodily crucifixion, and physical resurrection has the *earliest* and strongest attestation: the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 (dated by most scholars to AD 33–38), Paul’s undisputed letters (AD 50s), all four Gospels (Mark ~AD 65–70 using earlier sources), and writers like Ignatius (~AD 107) and Clement (~AD 95). The Gospels are not “decades later with no eyewitness link.” Strong early tradition (Papias, Irenaeus) ties them to apostolic testimony; Bauckham’s *Jesus and the Eyewitnesses* shows embedded eyewitness features. Even if formally anonymous, this is normal for ancient biographies, and the core message is consistent.

John’s Gospel (likely late 1st century) does address emerging errors, but it builds on earlier tradition, not invents it. Tensions existed (e.g., Galatians on Gentile law), but Paul met Peter, James, and John and received “the right hand of fellowship” (Gal 2:9); they agreed on the resurrection (1 Cor 15:11). Proto-orthodox Christianity did not win merely by political power; it had the earliest, broadest, and most geographically diverse support rooted in eyewitness testimony (1 John 4:2–3 emphasizes “in the flesh” against docetism).

Ehrman’s *Orthodox Corruption of Scripture* argues scribes sometimes altered texts to combat heresies. Yet Ehrman himself (an agnostic) affirms the text is reliably reconstructible, the crucifixion is historical fact, and early Christians sincerely believed in appearances. Most changes were minor. The resurrection belief predates any supposed “orthodox” editing — it is in the earliest creed Paul “received.”

The Qur’an’s denial of the crucifixion (4:157) is sincere but comes 600 years later without 1st-century chain. The earliest Jewish sources closest to the events support the Gospels’ portrait of a Jesus who died for sins (Isa 53), rose, and offers forgiveness and living water (John 4:14; Matt 11:28).

I invite you to read the Gospel of John in full context, asking the God of truth to guide you. N.T. Wright’s *Simply Jesus* or *The Resurrection of the Son of God* engages these exact questions fairly from history. Many who began with the Qur’an have met the real Jesus there — fully human, fully divine, the Savior who loves us enough to die and rise.

May He lead us both closer to Him.

Peace in Christ