Tag Archives: contradictions in the bible

Palm Sunday in the New Testament

Given that today is Palm Sunday, I decided to read the Gospels’ narratives of the day that Jesus allegedly rode into Jerusalem. When one reads the stories as they are presented going from Matthew to Mark to Luke to John, there’s a trend that cannot be ignored.

If anyone says anything to you, just say this, ‘The Lord needs them.’ And (he will send – αποστελει) them immediately. – Matthew 21:3 (NRSV).

The text here in Matthew reading that the owner will send the colt immediately.

If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ just say this, ‘The Lord needs it and will (send it back – αποστελλει παλιν) here immediately.’ – Mark 11:3 (NRSV).

The text here in Mark reads that the person sending the colt is Jesus, he is sending it back or returning it. The word being used here is παλιν (palin) to differentiate between sending, and sending back or returning. How then does Luke treat this narrative? Who does he decide is the one sending the colt? He fixes this contradiction by omitting the second quote of Jesus in the passage altogether, his version reads:

If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ just say this, ‘The Lord needs it.’ – Luke 19:31 (NRSV).

That leaves us with the Gospel of John, does this Gospel break the tie between Matthew and Mark to let us know which version is correct? Not exactly, John takes a different approach. Instead of the version presented in Matthew, Mark and Luke, John’s version omits the request sending altogether and in its place has Jesus finding a donkey himself:

Jesus (found – ευρον) a young donkey and sat on it; – John 12:14 (NRSV).

I suppose one lesson we can take away from Palm Sunday as it is written in the New Testament, is that if there’s a contradiction, one easy and quick way to solve it is to just omit the contradiction altogether.

and God knows best.

Have Christian Scholars Abandoned the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy? Yes!

Our esteemed Br. Yahya Snow has published a video with Christian apologist, Dr. Michael Licona agreeing that there are contradictions, irreconcilable contradictions in the New Testament:

Another prominent Theology Blogging website, aptly named Blogging Theology, highlighted this and many other claims of errancy within the Bible by Dr. Licona here. To make matters worse, the infamous Christian polemicist Sam Shamoun has declared that he no longer knows whether or not Dr. Licona is a true believer:


Not to be outdone, his close friend and student, Robert Wells (who once threatened to massacre innocent civilians if the voices in his head told him to do so) goes a step further and declares that he doesn’t even know if Dr. Licona is a Christian at all:


Picture taken from Blogging Theology by Paul Williams

Given that Dr. Licona has been a cornerstone for Christian apologetics, the swift excommunication of him by ardent Christians has come as a shock to the interfaith community. Have conservative Christian scholarship collectively given up on the doctrine of inerrancy? In this other recent video, that is exactly what Dr. Licona has done:

He’s not alone, even Dr. William Lane Craig has lowered the bar, so lowly, that he’s said this:


I’ve written an article on his statements here. Below is a video recording of him including the above statement and expanding on it:

At the end of the day, the sun has set on a major pillar of Christian apologetics. The view of Biblical inerrancy is quickly becoming a view of the past and Christianity of today now finds itself without certainty in scripture.

and Allah knows best.

10 Questions that Christians do not like to answer!

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In this list, I intend to present 10 questions which critique the Christian faith in an indepth manner. Whether you’re a Christain who is well educated or lesser educated, these questions are meant to provoke deeper thinking concerning your faith:

  1. If the earliest Christians within the first two centuries after Jesus did not need a New Testament to qualify their faith, why do modern Christians have such a need? If they did not sanction or consider any other writing beside the Old Testament to be scripture, then isn’t it a digression from the ‘true faith‘ of the earliest believers to incorporate something new as scripture? The first New Testament was codified and canonized by the heretic Marcion who believed that the Jewish YHWH was not the true God, the first time the largest Christian Church sanctioned a New Testament was during the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Carthage in 397 CE, some 360+ years after Jesus.

  2. In continuing with the New Testament, most scholars accept that Paul’s writings were the first of the New Testament to be written. Dr. Dale B. Martin dates 1st Thessolonians to be from 47 CE, Prof. Bart Ehrman dates it to be from 49 CE, either way the earliest Christian New Testament ‘scripture’ can theoretically be traced back to a man who admitted to being a fool (2 Cor. 11:1, 16), to being demon possessed by a satan sent by Christ (2 Cor. 12:6-11), who stole the name of a Pagan Roman leader (Acts 13:7-9), and who disagreed with the brother of Jesus, even fighting with the Disciples who lived with Christ and referring to them as not true believers! Heck, he even denounces a significant portion of two Gospels by criticising the biographies included in them in Titus 3:9.
  3. If Christ died for the sins of mankind, then by his sacrifice we are all sinless. On the cross and before his death he did not specify any criteria for his sacrifice to be upon us. He never put such conditions as belief in him as a deity or that we must accept the yet to be announced religion of ‘Christianity’ or to profess belief in the ‘Trinitarian Godhead’. If there are conditions, (let’s say to believe in him), then mere belief in his existence satisfies this condition. If Christ did die, then he died for you, me and everyone else and we are therefore sinless through his death. If it is claimed that he died only for the elect, then his death was useless as he claimed to die for all (John 3:16), but his death was not good enough to save everyone. The logic behind his death is also of great interest.
  4. According to Psalm 37:28, God would not forsake the faithful and just, He would protect them forever. Jesus on the cross claimed to be forsaken, as such, if Jesus did claim this, then according to Psalm 37:28, he was not faithful and just. The verse also mentions that the wicked would perish, since Christ died/ perished, then this verse would lead us to believe that God considered Christ to be wicked. If Psalm 37:28 does not apply to Jesus, what is the reasoning for this claim?
  5. If the Bible is the Word of God, and Psalm 119:89 claims that there is one eternal scripture preserved in the heavens, then which Old Testament and New Testament should we believe in? If you are a Bible believing Christian, this is a serious issue as no Bible post-John Mill’s GNT is derived from one holistic text but from a compendium of MSS codices, see the Nestle-Aland GNT. For more information, see here for an expansion of this line of questioning.
  6. If Jesus came with the intention of dying for everyone’s sins, then it must be understood that ‘intentionally killing one’s self‘ is considered to be suicide. Therefore Jesus’ death is suicide. If God is the Most Loving, why would he (a) murder his own son instead of forgiving (as He did for those who repented) or (b) commit suicide? Both of these are sinful acts. Can salvation be obtained through murder-suicide?
  7. Since Jesus said the ‘Father is greater than I‘ and we understand that God the son is co-equal to God the Father, then this is an inherit contradiction in the doctrine of the Trinity. For if one is greater than the other, how can God be greater than God? If one God is greater than another God we have a bigger issue as they are therefore not co-equal and are two distinct entities, therefore they are two Gods and not one. For if they are one, how can one be greater than the other?
  8. Who exactly is YHWH? Is YHWH Jesus, the Son and the Holy Ghost? Or is YHWH solely the Father? If the son-Jesus is YHWH, why does He never identify himself as such? Despite this problem/ confusion as to who YHWH actually is, another issue has arisen. According to 2 Corinthians 12:4, the inexpressible name of YHWH is actually a man made name, derived to substitute the loss of the real name of God. Yes, Christians and Jews do not really know the name of God. Exegete Adam Clarke explains in detail this conundrum. How can you call people to Christianity, if you don’t actually know who God is?
  9. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s purity from the original sin upon conception. According to the doctrine of the Original Sin, all born of women, inherit the sin of Adam and Eve. Since Jesus is born of a woman, then he automatically inherits this sin. However, he doesn’t, because of the sinless nature of Mary. Whether you are Catholic or not, in order for Jesus to have been born sinless, then you must believe that Mary at one point or another did not have the original sin and was thus sinless. The question therefore begs itself, where does the Bible say Mary is sinless or was born sinless? To further this argument, if we do inherit the sin of Adam and Eve, why do we not also inherit their repentance and good deeds?
  10. We’ve covered the Bible, Paul, Jesus, Creeds and Doctrines, Christology/ Theology, the Law and Salvation/ Soteriology. For the last question, I ask something very simple. Since God is the Creator and He created us, it is fitting that God should tell us our purpose of life or why we were created. Therefore, I’m asking for where in the Bible does God-YHWH-the Son-the Spirit or Paul, mention why God created us?


Some Christian Responses and my Refutations:

The following responses are by the former Atheist and Islamophobe, now quasi-Catholic anti-Muslim Denis Giron – located here.

Question #1:

The fact that, at one point in time, believers adhered to texts which some believers may not have been aware of at previous points in time can easily be explained within the context of progressive revelation, or a system where the details of the faith are unfolded over time. Such is not a “digression” if such was part of God’s plan. On a side note, it is worth noting that there are various 2nd century writers who quote many of the texts of the New Testament, and some scholars date the Muratorian fragment to the 2nd century, ergo it seems much (if not all) of the New Testament was used as Scripture by Christians within the first two centuries after Jesus.

He does not directly answer my question. I have asked that since the first Christians did not need to believe in the New Testament to be considered Christians, why does it matter if Christians today believe in the New Testament or not? His answer? To say that Christians did believe in the New Testament by offering a 2nd century quasi-canon. He makes an assumption, that because a list of books existed that all Christians believed in it. I’m not sure if his answer was a joke or if he assumes that I am functionally retarded, but to respond to him, when Athansius’ list was produced there is no evidence that all Christians believed in those books which is why some 30 years later two more Councils had to be held to declare them as scripture. Therefore given that bit of history, the existence of a list does not mean that some, all or most believed those books to be scripture, that is simply wishful thinking. The very fact that it took 2 centuries for the list to develop and be published, yet it took two other centuries after that for a majority of Christians to then accept those books of scripture, proves my point quite well enough.

Question #2:

The charge that he was demon possessed seems a bit of a leap. Many Christians would simply read the relevant text as referring to some trial he had to undergo, which was inflicted upon him by a messenger of Satan. This could be in reference to illness, mockery, or something else. Others, such as Job, were similarly afflicted.

Likewise, the charge that he stole the name Paul from a pagan leader is not supported by Acts 13:7-9. At best we can say they had the same “name” (Paulos meaning “small”). Surely Ijaz is not arguing that if two people have the same name, then one must be stolen from the other… e.g. is Ijaz’ own surname, Ahmad, “stolen” from Mirza Ghulam /Ahmad/? Of course, the answer is no, which would mean it is possible for two people to employ the same “name” without one being stolen from the other.

What this Christian calls a leap, I call reading the text and observing the works of the famous exegetes. In the link I provided and as the text states, he (Paul) was afflicted by a Messenger of Satan, which some exegetes have determined to be a demon troubling him. Unfortunately, this Christian ignores Church authority (while claiming to be a Catholic), the exegete Burkitt says in his notes about this verse:

“This thorn in the flesh is called the messenger of Satan, from whence St. Chrysostom concluded that it was some evil angel that was permitted and impowered by God to scourge and buffet him. The sufferings of the best and holiest persons in the flesh, may be the buffetings of a messenger of Satan , and yet be from God. Satan certainly intendeth our hurt, but God over-rules him as an instrument to do us good: It is no proof that a man is not a child of God, because Satan has a permission to torment his flesh. The messenger of Satan was sent to buffet me, says St. Paul, lest I should be exalted.”

I’m sorry that Denis does not read commentaries about such claims about Paul from among his own religious brethren, on the other hand I do and I have qualified my claim. He begins his defense of Paul’s stolen name by stating the text does not support it, to the contrary, immediately after Paul meets a Roman proconsul with the name Paulus, he changes from Saul to Paulus (also known as Paul). He didn’t change his name in either of the two contradicting narrations about his conversion, but miraculously he changes it after meeting someone with the same name, how ‘coincidental’ is that? Lastly, he gives a bad analogy, as my name is not derived from Mirza Ghulam, but derived from the one after which Ghulam was named, i.e. Ahmad, also known as Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Question #3:

One would think that Christ expects believers to believe what He taught (ergo, that would include believing that His blood was shed for the sins of others, et cetera), so it would seem more than mere belief in His existence is required.

This is again, wishful thinking. What Christ taught and said is not determined by your preconceived notions about his message. I think that if we are to be honest with ourselves, what Christ taught and did is of no consequence to us as his blood was already shed for us. Denis’ answer does not respond to my question, it raises the importance of my question. Christ does not say, not once in the Bible that we must believe he died for us to in order that we may receive salvation. Therefore whether we believe that he did x, y, or z does not matter as what truly matters is that he paid for our sins and whether I believe or disbelieve, does not affect his already having died.

Furthermore, Christians do not reduce obligatory doctrine to only that which Christ is quoted as teaching in the Bible. For example, Christ is not quoted as teaching the Virgin Birth, yet mainstream Christians would nonetheless hold that belief in such is obligatory. Ijaz’s methodology, if taken to its logical conclusion, would allow people to wave off the Virgin Birth, and thus it strikes me as a form of reverse-da3wa.

Denis decides the best method of deflecting from the core of my question is to jump to an irrelevant rant about Islam’s belief about the Virgin Birth. My question has nothing to do about empirical evidence about miracles, my question quite simply is meant to deal with a theological dilemma. What’s worse is that the only reason Denis is throwing this irrelevant statement into the mix about some supposed ‘methodology’ (which he does not indicate what it is), was written because of a previous discussion he had with me. In that discussion, I asked about the zombies in Matthew which came out of the grave upon Jesus’ alleged murder which some unknown author some 60 years later wrote about. Denis didn’t like that question, so he spent weeks running past it and it still frustrates him to this day, so he asked me to prove the Virgin Birth, thus doing reverse missionary work and throwing doubt on his own beliefs.

As for Christ’s sacrifice, the Bible makes clear that it makes salvation available to us, but it also makes clear that proper belief and sincere repentance are also needed.

Nowhere does the Bible say that we must believe in the Trinity as proper ‘belief’ to be absolved through Christ’s murder. This is once again, wishful thinking.

Question  #4:

Ijaz’ assertion that Jesus claimed to be forsaken is far from an agreed upon point among Christians. A great many Christians hold that Christ wasn’t actually expressing a belief that He had been forsaken; rather He was paraphrasing in Aramaic the opening of the 22nd Psalm. It is worthy of note that the 22nd Psalm has been historically interpreted by some Jews as referring to a Messianic figure suffering for the sins of others. Ergo, Christ was alluding to Scripture and subtly noting that, while observers might have thought that was the end of Him, there is more to the story.

To correct the Christian, he is trying to say that “Jesus did not mean what he said, his words are not to be taken literally”. Why is it not to be taken literally? He claimed to be “forsaken” in no uncertain terms, so why should I understand this to be something else? Does the Christian not take the “I AM” statement to be literal? Does he not take the “Father and I are one” statement to be literal, so why in this specific case should we be led to believe that Christ did not mean what he meant to say? This is the Christian mindset, where it suits them, something is literal and when it destroys their faith, then it must not be taken literally. The question still stands, why is it not to be taken literally in this incident, when he word for word, literally quoted Psalm 22?

As for Psalm 37:28, it does not mean that all righteous persons in this life will be spared from death or that only wicked people will suffer death in this life. Such a view would leave no room for the possibility of martyrdom, or even the mere fact that even righteous people do die. The Hebrew text’s declaration of “l`olam nishmaroo” (i.e. to eternity they [i.e. the chaseedeem of God] are preserved) gives the impression that it is referring to a scale of time which extends beyond death in this world.

The verse in question mentions being forsaken and then perishing. A martyr knows that he is not forsaken, but that his death is something beautiful, destined by God, in God’s plan. Jesus however, when allegedly on the Cross, uses the word “forsaken” and he cries out, questioning his God/ Daddy. In this regard, Christ does not see himself as a martyr or a righteous person, as the words he uses establishes him as a doubter in God’s plan and as one who feels forsaken by God’s love and mercy which is why some Christians point to Galatians 3:13 to emphasize the despair of Jesus.

Question #5:

The precise make-up of Scripture is indeed an interesting question, and has been so for much of Christian history (e.g. consider Jerome’s criticisms of the Septuagint in favor of the Hebrew Text he had access to). Regarding the New Testament, while different Christians will have different Greek corpora they prefer (e.g. a minority might side with the Textus Receptus, others, such as myself, might point instead to one of the more recent editions of the Nestle-Aland platform), none of these corpora will agree perfectly, letter for letter, with any known ancient corpus. Having said that, however, it does not seem that the differences among the different corpora necessitates a change in doctrine. For example, James White and the Jeho___’s Witnesses are pretty much in agreement on what the Greek text should look like, but they disagree doctrinally, while there were no doubt 17th century Calvinists who followed a Greek text essentially like that of the Textus Receptus who were nonetheless in doctrinal lockstep with the positions held by Dr. White, today. Beyond that, as far as the modern editions of the Greek NT are concerned, the points of dispute have become quite minor. It is quite telling that even a hyper-skeptic like Bart Ehrman admitted, in his debate with the aforementioned Dr. White, that were he to produce his own best attempt at reconstructing the Greek NT, it would differ less from the current Nestle-Aland platform than does the Textus Receptus. So perhaps one can go with a standard Greek NT, and we can discuss specific readings within verses which might be at the centers of disputes.

As for the OT, as far as Christian history is concerned, the variations there are far more egregious than is the case with the NT. I suppose in the end one is left to wonder whom to trust (e.g. the disbelieving Jews, the ancient Catholic Church, et cetera). I would say run with the Septuagint, supplementing it with the Masoretic Text along the way.

He does not address my question. In fact, he highlights and proves to me that he cannot fulfil the criteria of Psalm 119:89 of one holistic text. His conclusion based on his argument is that a hodge podge of various texts constitutes something as a ‘best attempting at reconstruction’. Best attempt at recreating scripture does not mean that you actually have the scripture, it means that you have something like it, something similar to it, but not the actual text for certainty. Therefore Denis has proven that his scripture is not certain and thus fails its own criteria to establish it as being from God.

Question #6:

 I would think there should be a distinction between putting oneself in a position where one might die so that others may live, on the one hand, and suicide simpliciter, on the other. For example, if a would-be assassin fired a gun at the Queen of England, and one of her body guards stepped in between her and the oncoming bullets, and he died as a result of his wounds, I do not think he would be waved off as merely a suicide.

As for the question of how we reconcile God’s love with the system of vicarious atonement proposed by Christianity (or even mildly similar systems of vicarious atonement proposed by Rabbinic Judaism), I would agree that, on the surface, it seems difficult. However, upon deeper reflection, I would think human beings are not in a place to speak on God’s love and justice.

This is the same Denis that also said that it was suicide (i.e. he agreed it was suicide):

giron suicide1

Regarding the question “can salvation be obtained through murder-suicide?,” I would say that salvation depends, in part, on the individual (cf. Philippians 2:12). If we rephrase the question, can the death of a person play a role in the atonement of the sins of others, just as Rabbinic Judaism would answer yes, so too would I.

This is quite funny, he concedes that murder-suicide plays a role in salvation. Where in Rabbinic Judaism is suicide sanctioned as a means of salvation, similarly, since when does  a quasi-Catholic accept the rulings of Rabbinic Judaism?

Question #7:

The Father being greater than the Son, on the one hand, and the Father and Son being equal, on the other, need not be a contradiction if we understand the former as referring to a difference in rank established since the Incarnation (and continuing to this day), and the latter as referring to their shared divine nature. That is to say, as is alluded to in Philippians 2:5-7, Christ and the Father, as two divine Persons sharing a common divine nature, were equal in nature, but in acquiring a human nature, Christ also took on the role of a servant of the Father, hence establishing a hierarchy of rank from the perspective of that second nature.

Again, the Christian here tries to wiggle away from the apparent contradiction before him. He uses the words ‘rank’, and ‘hierarchy’. Both indicate that one is not equal to the other, he qualifies my contradiction by demonstrating that when the Son assumed a human nature, he became subservient to the Father, therefore God who is eternal, changed to become not eternal and assume a lower position that His former self. Due to this, God is not equal to Himself, but also at the same time, allegedly equal to Himself, in logic, we call this a contradiction.

Question #8:

The being whose Name is the Tetragrammaton is the one God. That is to say, the Trinity. Nonetheless, that being comprises three Persons, and any one of those Persons can bear the Name or titles of the one God they are within (ergo we can use the Tetragrammaton to refer to one of the Persons within the one God whose Name is the Tetragrammaton).

As for 2 Corinthians 12:4, in no way does it lead to the conclusion that the Tetragrammaton is a man-made construction.

If YHWH is both 3 and also one distinct person – at the same time – as Denis indicates then where is this indicated in the Old Testament? Since YHWH is not found in the New Testament (as the Christian God did not known how to represent His name in His Greek revelation). Similarly, Jesus in the New Testament does not call himself YHWH and the Holy Spirit does not call itself YHWH, nor does the YHWH of the Old Testament identify itself as Jesus, Immanuel or as Mal’ak YHWH, but simply as YHWH. Lastly, 2 Cor. 12:4 does indicate the tetragrammaton is a man made construction, as even Matt Slick of CARM concedes that Christians cannot claim to know the real name of God or how to pronounce God’s true name.

Question #9:

Now, while I personally do believe in the Immaculate Conception, it is perhaps worth noting that non-Catholics are not forced to believe it. Case in point, some Orthodox take a view similar to that of Aquinas, and many Protestants take the view that, rather than God uniquely purifying Mary, Christ’s divinity simply gave that unique purification to His own human nature.

Regarding the question at the end of the ninth paragraph – “if we do inherit the sin of Adam and Eve, why do we not also inherit their repentance and good deeds?” – I would first it might help to ask what, exactly, we inherit from Adam and Eve, but, beyond that, I would say such is God’s will.

Nothing to respond to, or refute, as he pretty much says that this is what he believes and it’s God’s will, i.e. a dogma with no proof from scripture.

Question #10:

Colossians 1:16 states that all things were created for Christ. Philippians 2:10 states that it is God’s will that every person will eventually bow their knees at the Name of Christ. Ergo, from these two verses, all humans were created, in part, for the purpose of serving and acknowledging Christ (whether willingly or by force).

Colossians 1:16, simply says that all things were created by God, it does not say for what purpose. I didn’t ask who created us, my question simply was, ‘where in the Bible does God say why He created us’, telling me that He created us because He is the Creator, does not tell me why we were created, but who created us. I already knew that God created us, I am asking why. He simply did not answer the question. As for bowing to Christ, the Bible also says that God died for my sins, so I think it is more a case of God being created-incarnated to pay for my sins and suffer for me, which is a far worse prospect as I would see it to be, i.e. insulting towards God.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Bible: Jesus was Impure

Jesus’ Divine Birth .

To Trinitarian Christians, ‘The word ‘(God) became flesh ,

John 1: 14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

How did God become flesh?

Luke 1: 35
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

Now as we can see from above in accordance to Christian belief, baby (god) Jesus was in the womb of Mary for around nine months and then delivered into this world acting like all babies do crying, eating, drinking, secreting faeces … who would then later grow in wisdom and age.

Luke 2:52
And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

What is more puzzling is the idea that the birth of (god) Jesus would leave his mother (Mary) unclean, We read in Luke 2: 22-24:

22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”]), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “A pair of doves or two young pigeons.

Why a pair of doves and what does it mean? In order to clearly understand, we would have to go to Leviticus 12

Purification After Childbirth
12 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.6 “‘WHEN THE DAYS OF HER PURIFICATION FOR A SON OR DAUGHTER ARE OVER, SHE IS TO BRING TO THE PRIEST AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE TENT OF MEETING A YEAR-OLD LAMB FOR A BURNT OFFERING AND A YOUNG PIGEON OR A DOVE FOR A SIN OFFERING. 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.“‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”

The act of delivering a child leads to:

  • The mother (Mary) becoming unclean.
  • She (Mary) is to offer a sin sacrifice for delivering a child (baby Jesus -god).
  • If the mother delivers a boy it will take her “thirty-three days to be purified” while if she delivers a girl then it will take her “sixty-six days to be purified”.

In conclusion such beliefs attribute weakness and uncleanness to God, contradicting His eternal and unlimited characteristics. If the heavens and the earth cannot contain God even according to the Bible how then could baby Jesus ?

1 Kings 8:27
“But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!

2 Chronicles 6:18
“But will God really dwell on earth with men? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!

2 Chronicles 2:6
But who is able to build a temple for him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain him? Who then am I to build a temple for him, except as a place to burn sacrifices before him?

The simple reasonable and logical answer to the above dilemma would be to accept Jesus as a Prophet of God.

Quran 4:171

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ ۚ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِنْهُ ۖ فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ ۖ وَلَا تَقُولُوا ثَلَاثَةٌ ۚ انْتَهُوا خَيْرًا لَكُمْ ۚ إِنَّمَا اللَّهُ إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ ۖ سُبْحَانَهُ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ ۘ لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۗ وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّهِ وَكِيلًا

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not “Trinity”: desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth.

The Apostle Paul’s Disobedience of Jesus in Matthew 5:22

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In the alleged Gospel of Matthew we read the following:

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.Matthew 5:22.

Clearly, Jesus is allegedly saying this verse as a warning not to call someone a fool. If you do call someone a fool, you’d be liable to enter the fires of hell. That’s a serious punishment. However, everyone’s favourite pseudo Apostle somehow decided he was brave enough to disobey Christ, his alleged deity and saviour. We read in 2 Corinthians the following:

 I repeat, let no one think me foolish. But even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little. What I am saying with this boastful confidence, I say not as the Lord would but as a fool. Since many boast according to the flesh, I too will boast. For you gladly bear with fools,being wise yourselves! For you bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face. To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! But whatever anyone else dares to boast of—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast of that. – 2 Corinthians 11:16-21.

 I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. – 2 Corinthians 12:11.

Either it is that Paul intentionally disobeyed Christ, or he intentionally disobeyed Christ by calling himself a fool. If Paul saw himself as a Christian, then he would have known that Christ forbade such labelling upon any Christian! This presents us with an issue, as the reason Christ forbade anyone from using such a term is because it was commonly used to describe idolaters:

Thou fool – This term expressed more than want of wisdom. It was expressive of the highest guilt. It had been commonly used to denote those who were idolaters Deuteronomy 22:21, and also one who is guilty of great crimes,Joshua 7:15; Psalm 14:1. – Barne’s Notes on the Bible, Matthew 5.

Paul therefore has done the following:

  1. Paul sees himself as a Christian.
  2. Paul is  a Pharisee and knows the Old Testament well.
  3. Jesus forbids calling a Christian by the title of fool.
  4. The title of fool is commonly attributed to idolaters in the Old Testament.
  5. Since #1 is true, then Paul willingly disobeys Christ’s command in #3.
  6. Since #5 is true, then Paul is an open sinner against Christ.
  7. Since #2 and #4 is true, then Paul knows he is attributing the title of ‘idol worshipper’ to himself.
  8. Since #5, #6 and #7 is true we can logically conclude that Paul is openly rejecting the words of Christ, and knowingly calling himself as an idolater and rejects the title of being a Christian.

This therefore leaves Christians in a precarious position, for if they continue to believe that Paul is a Christian, they are contradicting his own words where he calls himself by a title commonly reserved for idol worshippers and are thus rejecting Paul’s description of himself. Another problem is if they endorse Paul’s use of the title and his writing’s inclusion in the New Testament as a scripture, then they are endorsing the work of an idolater who openly opposes Christ. Either Christians must reject Paul for what he calls himself, or they reject Christ in lieu of Paul. Whichever choice they make, they have no conclusion but to realise that Paul is in clear error.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

The Problem of Colossians 4:16

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In the following quote, we read that the alleged Apostle Paul, commands his followers to read one of his epistles that he sent to another town:

And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea. – Colossians 4:16.

The problem with this verse is that the Epistle to Laodicea no longer exists, therefore the scripture (according to Christians) of Colossians 4:16 is commanding the impossible. This raises a bigger issue, and to explain it we need another quote from New Testament:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God  may be complete, equipped for every good work.” – 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

According to Sham Shamoun, this verse refers to Paul’s letters in general as scripture:

“Since all the letters where Paul claimed inspiration preceded the writing of 1 and 2 Timothy, we can safely infer that these epistles would have also been included among the Scriptures that Paul said were breathed out by God; an inference which the apostle Peter himself makes:

“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16″

This reasoning therefore exacerbates the problem of scriptural self contradiction, emendation and rejection. How so? To be quite honest, if Paul’s words are inspired by God and are therefore scripture and as scripture it is commanding Christians to read a certain letter, yet that letter does not exist, we’re in a bit of a conundrum here. If we consider the letter of Laodicea to be scripture according to Sam’s interpretation of 2 Timothy and in light of 2 Timothy itself, then the Christian faith has dug itself into a ditch. Allow me explain:

  1. Paul’s words are seen as scripture.
  2. All scripture is profitable and useful for teaching and guidance, according to 2 Timothy.
  3. If #2 is true, then Colossians 4:16 is false as it is not profitable as the Epistle to Laodicea does not exist.
  4. Since Colossians 4:16 is false, then #1 cannot be true since it does not fulfil the condition of #2.
  5. Since #1 and #2 are false, then the New Testament thus far cannot be seen as scripture.
  6. Since #3 is true, then why do Christians continue to believe it to be scripture?

Considering that logic is not the best friend of our friends at Answering Islam or Answering Muslims, I need to establish my point a bit more simply. In context of 2 Tim. 3:16, Paul’s letters are scripture and are therefore useful for teaching. Paul’s letter commands the impossible and thus is useless. Since it is useless than 2 Tim. 3:16 is false. Since 2 Tim. 3:16 is false, then as a whole, the New Testament is not trustworthy as it contradicts the very criteria under which it exists. Now, I’m assuming that I’m dealing with some thick headed people, so I’m going to bring to the forefront an even simpler argument. Colossians 4:16 commands us to read a scripture known as the Epistle to Laodicea, since Colossians 4:16 made it into the canon by YHWH’s will, then we have some bigger issues:

  1. YHWH was ignorant of what would happen to the Epistle to Laodicea.
  2. YHWH knew what would happen and chose to have 2 Tim. 3:16 contradict Paul.
  3. If #2 is true, then YHWH is deceitful as he is not the author of confusion see 1 Cor. 14:33.
  4. Since #3 is true, then the YHWH of the New Testament is not a true God by his own criteria/ Paul’s inspired writings.

So where does this leave the Christian religion? Either they have to forego Paul’s letters as worthless garbage in order to protect the dignity of YHWH, or they reject both YHWH as he contradicts the criteria of not being a God of confusion. If not, then rejecting both YHWH and Paul is the best solution as both contradict each other and themselves, as demonstrated above. Therefore due to simple logic, according to the Bible, Christians must reject the Bible, YHWH and Paul.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.