JESUS

[Cristian]

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Cristian]

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

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

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

 

[Cristian]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cristian]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cristian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cristian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

May the piece be with you. God bless.

 

[Cristian]

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

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

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

 

[Cristian]

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

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

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