Tag Archives: islam

Refutation: Jesus, Islam, and Atonement for Sin

Posted on by 3 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

On the eve of Christianity’s most treasured period of celebration and praise, we find Christian Apologist David Wood focusing his attention on Islam.  How strange is it, that David would rather spend an occasion so dear to his religion, to talk about another religion? In light of his statements, I present a quick, concise and simple to understand response.

The verses of Qur’aan 6:164 and 17:13-15, do explicitly state that one person would not bear the sin of another. For example, if you steal a car, I will not pay the punishment for your sin of theft. However, according to Qur’aan 16:22-25, if you lead a person to sin then you will be punished for that sin because you’ve misguided that person and misguiding/ tempting a person into sin, is a sin. Say you sell a person that stolen car, you’ve lead that person to purchase a stolen vehicle without them knowing, but it is you who are responsible for selling the vehicle. Thus you bear the sin of stealing the vehicle and selling the vehicle. The one who has purchased it, does not know it is stolen so you will bear the sin of an unlawful transaction.

David Wood doesn’t seem to understand this and sees it as a contradiction, yet the Bible also promotes the belief that tempting a person into sin is sinning, as entering into temptation is a sin:

“Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” – Matthew 26:41.

He then jumps to Qur’aan 29:12-13, without providing any context so as to fool the simple minded readers of his facetious blog. According to verse 12, the Quraysh told the Muslims that they should revert to paganism and they the Quraysh, would bear (willingly) the sins of the Muslims. This is substitutionary atonement, where one person pays for the sins of another by substitution. However Allaah rebukes them, rather He says that each will bear his own sin and the Quraysh will bear their sin of misguiding Muslims. Meaning then, the Muslims will bear there own sins and the Quraysh will have the added sin of trying to misguide the Muslims, i.e. tempting them to disbelief. There is again, no contradiction here, it only exists as such in the mind of David Wood.

As for the arguments he presented from the ahadith, I’ve responded to them here in great detail. The short answer being:

HellorNoHell

It’s an argument stolen from Sam Shamoun, nevertheless, the ahadith do not imply (save for a prima facie reading), that a Christian or Jew is substituted for a Muslim in the fires of hell. Rather, for a Muslim and a Christian/ Jew there is each a place for them in heaven or hell. If the Muslim goes to heaven, his place in hell is unfilled, since the Christian/ Jew (due to their kufr – disbelief) is going to hell, then that spot in hell would be occupied by a disbeliever. Nothing in either or hadith, imply that a Christian/ Jew is the substitute for any Muslim, such a case only exists in the drunken rants of David Wood.

Thus, in Islam, you bear your own sin, for you are responsible for what you do. You are also responsible for leading others into sin and will thus bear the sin of misguiding others from the truth. David says he disagrees with this type of theology, therefore I must logically conclude that David does believe he is an adult who needs to be held accountable for his grievous inhibitions and devious deeds. What’s worse is that, since David does not want to feel responsible for his own actions, he wants us to believe that God should bear the burden for our sins. This would have to mean that God is the worse sinner of all, a far cry from being a ‘Holy’ God.

Rather, we as Muslims believe in a ‘Holy God’, not a sinful God and we take full responsibility for our actions, we don’t need to blame others for our mistakes as David would want you to do.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Muslims are the Guardians to Christianity’s Two Holiest Sites

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

This may sound strange to most, but Muslims, yes, non-Christians are the custodians to Christianity’s holiest of sites and it has been this way for more than 12 centuries. The International Business Times says:

JERUSALEM — Every Christian knows the holiest places in Christendom are in Jerusalem. The holiest of all, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, was erected in 325, over the site where it is believed Jesus was crucified, buried and rose from the dead.

Yet, few know that it is a Muslim who opens and closes the only door to this holiest of Christian sites.

In fact, it’s two Muslims: one man from the Joudeh family and another man from the Nuseibeh family, two Jerusalem Palestinian clans who have been the custodians of the entrance to the Holy Sepulchre since the 12th century.

Every morning, at 4:30, Adeeb Joudeh travels from his apartment outside the walls of the Old City to bring the cast-iron key to the church, just as his father and his forebears did before him.

Once there, he entrusts the key — looking like a 12-inch (30-centimeter) long iron wedge — to Wajeeh Nuseibeh, who knocks at the gate to call the priests and the pilgrims who spend the night praying inside. From inside the church, a wooden ladder is passed through a porthole to help him unlock the upper part of the enormous door.

Then, he unlocks the lower one before handing the precious key back to Joudeh. The ritual is reversed every evening at 7:30, after hundreds of tourists and pilgrims have left the church.

During holidays, such as Holy Week, which culminates Sunday with the Christian Easter, the elaborate opening and closing ceremonies take place several times a day.

Why the elaborate ritual? As often happens in Jerusalem, a city holy to several peoples and religions, there are different versions to explain why two Muslim families hold the key to the holiest site in Christendom.

“After the Muslim conquest in 637, the Caliph Omar guaranteed the Archbishop Sophronius that the Christian places of worship would be protected and so entrusted the custodianship to the Nuseibehs, a family who originated in Medina and had had relations with the Prophet Muhammad,” said Nuseibeh, a retired 63-year old electrician, while waiting in a nearby cafe to carry out his duties at the Holy Sepulchre.

“It happened again in 1187, after Saladin ended the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. He chose our family again to look after the peace between the different Eastern and Western Christian confessions, which were at odds over control of the Sepulchre,” he said with a gentle smile, sitting next to his son, Obadah.

To this day, coexistence among the several Christian churches sharing the Holy Sepulchre is a delicate one. Catholic, Greek, Armenian, Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopian Orthodox monks have resorted to fists more than once to defend their respective denomination’s rights and privileges in the church, as defined in an decree by the Ottoman Empire, known as the Status Quo of 1853.

Such impious brawls between clergy proved Saladin’s prescience 1,000 years ago, when the sultan sealed the second front gate of the church and entrusted control of the remaining entrance to neutral custodians.

The Nuseibehs claim that the Joudehs entered this story only in the 16th century, after the Ottoman Turks gained control of Palestine and decided to charge a second family with the responsibility of guarding the key.

“Yes, we share the responsibility with the Joudehs, and sometimes we argue, as happens in a family,” Nuseibeh said.

Each Maundy Thursday since the end of the 19th century, the two Muslim families give the key to the Holy Sepulchre to the local Franciscan friars, for as long as it takes to walk to the church in a procession and to open the door after the morning liturgies. When those are completed, the friars return the key to the families.

This ceremony, which confirms in practice the validity of the Muslim families’ custodianship, is repeated with the Greek and Armenian communities, on Orthodox Good Friday and Holy Saturday, respectively.

“Right now, I have in my hands the keys to Christendom’s heart. This is a very important moment for us,” said the Rev. Artemio Vitores, the Spanish Franciscan who is the vicar Custodian of the Holy Land, during the Maundy Thursday procession.

“For centuries, Christian pilgrims were denied entry to the church, or had to pay huge sums to pray on the Sepulchre,” he said, all while holding the key.

At the head of the procession, Vitores was flanked on one side by Wajeeh Nusseibeh, his son Obadah and two cousins, all of whom were equally compensated by the friars for their services with the symbolic sum of $60.

On Vitores’ other side were Adeeb Joudeh, wearing an impeccable dark gray suit, and his 19-year-old son Jawad.

For about 20 minutes, Joudeh ceded control of the only existing key to the Holy Sepulchre. While there is another key, it is broken and no longer used. The functioning key is normally kept in a small office attached to the church and is guarded by an employee of the Joudeh family.

“This key has seen Saladin and every generation of my family since 1187. To me, it’s an honor to be in charge of the holiest of Christian places,” Joudeh said, while walking the cobblestoned alley leading to the Holy Sepulchre.

He insisted on showing on his smartphone what he claimed are 165 official decrees confirming the Joudeh family’s role as custodian of the church over the centuries.

“My ancestor who was given the keys was a sheik, a highly respected person, who was not supposed to perform physical labor, such as climbing the ladder to open the gate,” Joudeh explained. “That’s why the Nuseibehs were called in to perform this duty. Unfortunately, they feel still ashamed of being just the doorkeepers.”

At the end of the procession, the key was welcomed by cheerful pilgrims waiting in front of the church.

For a few minutes, everybody stared at the solemn opening of the gate before rushing in.

Moments later, Adeeb Joudeh walked home with his son, as did Wajeeh Nuseibeh. They will come back here, time and again, at the gate of the Holy Sepulchre: two Muslims, coming in peace to bear the key to the heart of Christianity.

What a truly beautiful show of inter-faith harmony that has lasted beyond the borders of time.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Were the Disciples of Jesus, Christian?

Posted on by Leave a comment

An introductory look into the New Testament “Disciples” for their bizarre relationship with their Master

Question Mark

Introduction

  

This is the final installment in our series of responses to Sam Shamoun for his alleged discovery of  “errors” in the Qur’an for it asserting original followers of Jesus (peace be upon him) to be “Muslims”!

To make his case, Shamoun quotes many passages from New Testament to portray belief system of the truest and sincerest disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him) to argue that such belief system could not have been endorsed by a disciple had he been Muslim! And as such, Shamoun claims, Qur’an is at historical “error” for claiming Jesus’ (peace be upon him) followers to be Muslims.

In the last part we showed that apart from well-known ‘Christian’ disciples, New Testament also contains many other followers of Jesus (peace be upon him) who came very close to the Qur’anic assertion that original followers of Jesus (peace be upon him) were Muslims and so the Qur’anic assertion cannot be outright denied even from New Testament’s point of view.

Nevertheless, because Shamoun brought up the issue of “disciples” and argued that the New Testament disciples were the original and truest disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him) therefore, in this paper, we are going to take a step further than Shamoun. Shamoun has used certain New Testament passages to portray the famous New Testament disciples of Jesus (peace be upon hm), however, as usual, he has conveniently ignored scores of other passages. We would have a fuller look into the quality of belief and loyalty that the New Testament “disciples” had for their master.

Read more

Christians in Sudan: Child Marriages En Masse

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

 In the Christian majority nation of South Sudan, which broke away from the Muslim Shari’ah enforced Sudan, child marriages have become a religious and cultural mainstay. Despite the misconception that Islam promotes child marriages, it is not in the Muslim Shari’ah ruled Sudan that such a case of this magnitude is prevalent, but in the Christian majority South. The Digital Journal reports:

A newly released Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, entitled “This Old Man Can Feed Us, You Will Marry Him:’ Child and Forced Marriage in South Sudan,” calls on the government of South Sudan to adopt measures to protect girls from child marriage.

In a country where at least 48 percent of young girls between 15 and 19 are married, with some marrying as young as 12, child marriage further widens gender gaps in school enrollment, contributes to rampant mortality rates and prevents girls from being free from violence.

The report’s information was collected through interviews with 87 girls and women in Central Equatoria, Western Equatoria, and Jonglei states, as well as with government officials, traditional leaders, health care workers, legal experts, teachers, the United Nations and non-governmental organizations.

I wonder how the Christians who praised the Christian South from breaking away from the ‘evil’ Muslim Sudan, will now justify and excuse almost 50% of all marriages being child marriages in the country which they so wholeheartedly support! Would David Wood, Robert Spence or Sham the Shamoun highlight this issue and try to combat ‘child marriages’ among their peoples, or is it only wrong when a report of a Muslim doing it makes news?

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

 

Burning of Christian Homes in Pakistan

Posted on by 3 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Recently in Pakistan, a serious case of oppression against Christians by mob behaviour has taken the headlines. As Muslims we must condemn such acts of violence as they encroach upon the rights of non-Muslims as enshrined in the Shari’ah of Islam. To understand the rights that non-Muslims have over Muslims, we read the following from Shaykh Abd al Aziz ibn Baz:

“He should not wrong him, with regard to his physical well being, his wealth or his honour. If he is a dhimmi (non-Muslim living under Muslim rule), musta’man (one who is granted security in a Muslim land) or mu‘aahid (one with whose country the Muslims have a peace deal), then he should give him his due rights, and not transgress against his wealth by stealing, betraying or deceiving, and he should not harm him physically by striking or killing him, because the fact that he is a mu‘aahid or dhimmi, or musta’man, means that he is protected by sharee‘ah.”

“Another right is being a good neighbour. So if he is a neighbour, be kind to him and do not annoy him; give charity to him if he is poor, give him gifts, give him beneficial advice, because these are things that will attract him to Islam and to become Muslim; and because the neighbour has rights. The Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Jibreel kept urging me to be kind to my neighbour until I thought that he would make him my heir.” Saheeh – agreed upon. If the neighbour is a kaafir, he still has the rights of a neighbour; if he is both a relative and a kaafir, then he has two rights: the rights of a neighbour and the rights of a relative. ” – Shaykh Abd al Azeez ibn Baz, “Fataawa Noor ‘ala al-Darb, 1/289-291.”

Here is some advice offered by Mufti Ebrahim Desai (damaat barakatahum) concerning blasphemy to the Prophet (peace be upon him) by the disbelievers and what the Muslim reaction should and should not be:

1. Consult with Ulama and responsible people before doing anything. Do not do anything by yourself. Shura and consultation is vital in such an issue.

2. Express anger and disgust within the framework of the law of the country. Use the law of the country to its full capacity.

3. Do not be violent in any way and do not burn buildings, cars, etc.

4. Boycott all Danish products and products of anyone else who support Denmark in this issue or even sympathise with Denmark.

5. Do not confine expression of anger to the cartoon issue. Use the opportunity to express the disgust on Islamophobia in general and highlight some pertinent issues.

6. The most important in this is the issue of Da’awah. Use the opportunity to explain to the world the great personality of Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam]. His lifestyle and character should be printed and published all around the world. This will be an eye opener to many ignorant people and a means of guidance. Take out the positive aspects from a negative one and use the situation to our advantage. Every Muslim should say and write something about our beloved Rasul [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam].

7. It is of utmost importance that we engage in lots of du’aa and Dhikr, Fasting and Sadaqaat. Make du’aa that Allah guide the Ummah in this trying times.

8. Do not conduct ourselves with our fellow non-Muslim citizens in a way that offend them and look for an opportunity to get back at us. We will then be the cause of them showing disrespect to Islam and Islamic values. Always express good character and conduct to all.

9. The most important issue in expressing our love and honour for Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] is following his Sunnah. Expressing our anger at the disrespect to Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] is important but it will be hypocritical if we do not emulate the outward appearance, beard, dressing, etc. and noble character of Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam]. Every one should obtain a kitaab on the Sunnats of Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] and implement that in our lives and pass this over to others.

Even the scholars of the Indo-Pak region have stated the same (in responses to a non-Muslim’s blasphemy):

“Punishing a criminal or a guilty is the duty of a government not individuals like we and you. In India, though we do not have an Islamic government, but we should try our level best to get such a perpetrator punished according to the Indian Constitution.” – Darul Iftaa, Darul Uloom Deoband (Fatwa: 1386/1226=B).

It is important to remember, that there is no verse in the Qur’aan or Hadith which permits the crowd/ mob justice against a non-Muslim or Muslim for any reason. If there is a legitimate issue, then there are courts where a Judge can preside over such issues. To act violently as those persons have done in Pakistan, contravenes the sanctity of the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims and disrupts the lives of these victims while causing harm to them and their property, this is certainly haram (impermissible in Islam) and for anyone to claim that this is something which Islam encourages, then such people are only adding flames to the fire and are causing more unrest. The fact of the matter is, such acts are reprehensible and against the teachings as found in the Qur’aan and Sunnah as outlined and stipulated by the Ulama (religious scholars) in their statements (as given above).

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Quick Commentary on the Law of Apostasy in the Bible

Posted on by 10 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It is absurd that Christians argue against the law of Apostasy when their own God commanded that apostates be killed:

“If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” – Deuteronomy/ Devarim 13:6-10.

Jesus did not comment on this law, nor did he abolish it, for he said:

““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:17-20.

When Jesus says that he came to fulfil the law, it means that he came to complete it. How did he complete it? By rectifying six laws, as is found in verses 20 and beyond, regarding: Murder, Adultery, Divorce, Oaths, Eye for an Eye and Loving Your Enemies. In fact, YHWH makes it clear that His laws are eternal:

“All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.” – Psalm 119:160.

Concerning this verse, the exegete, Barnes, says:

“Since any one of thy laws is as certainly founded in truth as any other, it must be that all alike are eternal and unchanging. It must be so with all the essential principles of morality. Mere regulations in regard to rites and ceremonies may be altered, as local and municipal laws among men may be; but essential principles of justice cannot be. A civil corporation – the government of a city or borough – may change its regulations about streets, and culverts, and taxes; but they can never enact laws authorizing murder or theft; nor can they alter the essential nature of honesty and dishonesty; of truth and falsehood.”

Jesus himself never comments on the law of apostasy and in that, he also never repeals it. Opposingly, we have clear, extant, explicit words from him and from YHWH about the laws of God being eternal and to never be discarded, as such there is no reason, whether from the Old Testament, New Testament, YHWH, Jesus or the Disciples that any Christian can argue from, that the Law of Apostasy as given by YHWH is now defunct and inapplicable without lying about their own scripture and God.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

In Honour of the Greatest African American Muslim Leader

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

malcolm x

Undoubtedly, one of the greatest men to have walked this earth. An inspiration to all. In the time he lived, our beautiful Muslim brother transcended the barriers of Capitalism, Christianity and ‘Democracy’. May Allaah ta ‘aala grant this giant, Jannat al Firdous, Ameen.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Does Qur’an validate Bible?

Posted on by 9 comments

Does Qur’an validate Bible?

A response to Sam Shamoun’s critique: Qur’an Error – Were Jesus’ Disciples Muslims?

 

Part1

 

Question Mark

Introduction

 

Christian evangelists and missionaries apply a standard argument upon Muslims that the Qur’an “validates” Bible! They especially use this argument against Muslims who are uninitiated in missionary tactics. Once a gullible Muslim is sufficiently duped into this cunning deception, “winning souls” into Christianity is not far off [1.].

Read more

A Detailed Investigation into the Taqiyyah of the Bible!

Posted on by 2 comments

The Bible teaches and promotes dissimulation

by Ibn Anwar BHsc. (Hons)

To accuse Islam of teaching dissimulation(taqiyyah) and its adherents of practising it is one of the most common tactics employed by critics and detractors of Islam in their relentless crusade to demonise Islam. Many Christians gladly hop on the bandwagon peddling the mantra at every street corner, shouting to one and all, “Muslims do taqiyyah. Never believe them!”. Do Christians never lie? “No, real Christians will not lie!” answers the deluded cultic Christian. The more edified ones will concede saying, “yes, Christians do lie as well, but the difference between Islam and Christianity is that the Bible does not teach or promote lying in any way while the Qur’an and Sunnah do.” Really? Even a “white lie” is sinful according to the Bible? “Yes, even a white lie is wrong. No such thing as a white lie!” says the confident Christian.

In this article we will not concern ourselves with what taqiyyah truly means in Islam and whether its representation by its critics is accurate or not. That execrcise can be done at a later date. In the meantime, it is sufficient to mention here that most Muslims have never heard of the term in their entire life as is readily admitted by so called ex-Muslims themselves (refer to the video at the end of the article). In this article we will unpack the question of whether the Bible is truly immune from promoting dissimulation or deception. Our first subjects are Shiphrah and Puah, the midwives of Exodus 1. Who were these fine women exactly? Let us turn to Exodus 1:15-22.

The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah,“When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.”The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?”

The midwives answered Pharaoh, “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive.”

So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous.And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.

Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: “Every Hebrew boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live.” (Exodus 1:15-22)

In summary, Pharoah instructed Shiphrah and Puah to murder newborn Hebrew male babies. They did not follow through with the order as they feared God. They let the boys live. The Phraoah found out that they did not complete their task and summoned them to answer for their failure. They feigned innocence and ignorance by deceiving the king that they could not reach the women on time when they gave birth. Their lives were clearly spared by their deception and God rewarded them for their deed without reproaching their lie in any way. Is this not a clear example of dissimulation? President of the Multnomah Bible College and Biblical Seminary in Portland, Oregan, Dr. Daniel R. Lockwood writes:

“The faith of the midwives, named Sephirah and Puah, is a breathtaking story (Exod. 1:15-22). Pharoah personally gives them their ghoulish assignment, probably to discourage any disobedience. But surprisingly they conspire to disobey Pharaoh and deceive him. And their plan works.

….

Furious, Pharoah declares an all-out genocide on Hebrew male infants. Yet he accepts the midwives’ story with little investigation, and we are privy to the reason why. These women fear the Lord and obey him; and, though the likely expect to die, God favors them with both life and prosperity.” [1] (emphasis added)

Read more

A Case Study of Peter’s Denial

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Note: This article by sister Elisabeth Strout, a female revert from the depths of Christianity to the heights of Islam, read her story here.

While getting ready to teach a Sunday School class on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, my mother asked me what Islam teaches about these issues. Honestly, I responded that the Qur’an simply states categorically that Jesus didn’t die, the Jews only thought they killed him. While that leaves room for countless theories, from the switching of bodies with a look-alike, to the swoon theory, the basic teaching is that Jesus did not die and come back to life, but rather ascended to heaven without dying. I concluded with the assertion that Christians themselves cannot trust their own Bible’s teaching, as it’s riddled with contradictions. My parents confidently disavowed any possibility of discrepancy between the Bible’s four accounts of the event, and as a result, I’ve spent the last few days studying the four Biblical crucifixion and resurrection narratives closely, to analyze the contradictions between them.

There are quite a few, and while some may be written off with the “inclusive” explanation (i.e. Matthew and Mark recount Jesus’ last words as being “my God, my God why have you forsaken me”, Luke claims they were “into thy hands I commit my spirit”, while John says they were “it is finished”, and Christians generally claim that Jesus said all three in succession, “my God, my God why have you forsaken me, into your hands I commit my spirit, it is finished”.), there are some narratives that cannot be reconciled, no matter how you superimpose them.

Rather than posting them all here at once and leave readers floundering in all the references, I decided to start with a case study of one particular event in the story, namely Peter’s denial of Christ. While the wording differs insignificantly between the three questioners who point Peter out, that is not primarily of interest. Take a look at Matthew and Luke’s accounts, which are almost identical, and then compare them with John, and then Mark, and notice the incompatible details:

Matthew 26:69-75

  • All disciples flee upon Jesus’ arrest, Peter follows at a distance.

  • A servant girl in the courtyard says, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean,” Peter responds, “I do not  know what you mean”.

  • A different servant girl at the gate says, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth,” Peter responds with an oath, “I do not know the man”.

  • The bystanders say, “Certainly you are one of them, your accent betrays you,” Peter responds again with an oath, “I do not know the man.”

  • The rooster crows, Peter remembers Jesus’ prediction, and weeps bitterly.

Luke 22:55-62

  • Jesus is arrested (no mention made of disciples fleeing), Peter follows at a distance.

  • A servant girl in the courtyard says, “This man also was with him,” Peter responds, “Woman, I do not know him.”

  • Another person says, “You also are one of them,” Peter responds, “Man, I am not.”

  • Another person says, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean,” Peter responds, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.”

  • The rooster crows, Peter remembers Jesus’ prediction, and weeps bitterly.

So far, so good. Again, there is a slight difference of wording, but that can be overlooked. Take note of the emphasized words in Matthew, and now watch how in John, the story takes on a lot more detail (though John was written decades later), and the contradictions begin.

John 18:15-27

  • Jesus is arrested (no mention made of disciples fleeing), Peter and another disciple follow. The other disciple gets into the courtyard because he knows an official. Peter doesn’t get into the courtyard, so the disciple sends a servant girl to open the gate for him.

  • The servant girl at the gate says, “You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” and Peter responds, “I am not.”

  • The officers and servants around the fire in the courtyard say, “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” and Peter responds again, “I am not.”

  • A relative of the man whose ear Peter cut off asks, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” and Peter denies it.

  • The rooster crows (no mention is made of his weeping).

So now, apart from the general wording and the location of the questioners (he goes from courtyard to gate in Matt., and from gate to courtyard in John), we have several distinct differences. First, the identity of the following disciples. Matt. claims all the disciples fled except Peter, and Peter alone followed from a distance. John makes no mention of the disciples fleeing, and claims both Peter and another disciple followed. Typical of John, the other disciple remains anonymous leaving Christians to speculate that it was probably John himself. Either way, either they all fled except Peter, or they all fled except Peter and John. It can’t be both.

Secondly, the identity of the questioners. Other than the first, the servant girl, Luke leaves the second two questioners anonymous, so his version is fairly compatible with the others. Matthew on the other hand, states that the questioners were (1) a servant girl in the courtyard, (2) a different servant girl at the gate, and (3) the bystanders (identified in John as officials and servants). John claims they were (1) a servant girl at the gate, (2) the by-standing officers and servants, and (3) a relative of the man whose ear Peter cut off.

While some may be tempted to generalize “bystanders” to mean anyone, including servant girls and relatives of earless men, the gospels purposely distinguish between the two, and the relative’s words in John set him apart even further from the bystanders of Matt., Mark, and Luke. While the three synoptics list, with slightly different wording, the third questioner as having recognizing Peter as a Galilean (because of his accent in Matt.), John’s third questioner (the relative of the man whose ear Peter cut) recognizes Peter because he saw him in the garden, during the arrest. It can’t be both.

Finally, we come to Mark’s account, which has yet another notable difference. While agreeing with Matthew about all the disciples fleeing except Peter, and the third question from the bystanders about Peter being Galilean, there are a few details that don’t match up.

Mark 14:66-72

  • All disciples flee upon Jesus’ arrest, Peter follows at a distance.

  • A servant girl at the fire in the courtyard says, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus,” Peter responds, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.”

  • Peter goes out to the gate and the rooster crows.

  • The same servant girl sees him there and says, “This man is one of them,” and Peter denies it.

  • The bystanders say, “Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean,” Peter responds with an oath, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.”

  • The rooster crows a second time, Peter remembers Jesus’ prediction, and weeps bitterly.

While Matthew specifies that the first two accusations were leveled by two different servant girls, Mark goes to the trouble of telling us they were spoken by the same servant girl. It can’t be both. The second, and more noticeable aberration, is that Mark’s account of the story, as well as his account of Jesus’ prediction, differ in the number of times the rooster crows. While Peter is told he will deny three times, and does deny three times, in all accounts, Jesus predicts it will be “before the rooster crows”, in Matt., Luke, and John, and “before the rooster crows twice”, in Mark. And sure enough, in Matt., Luke and John, Peter denies thrice before the rooster crows, while in Mark, he denies, the rooster crows (the sound of it doesn’t bring him to his senses yet), he denies twice more, and the rooster crows again. So which was it, before the rooster crows, or before it crows twice? It can’t be both.

It seems like a silly, insignificant story. Same servant girl or different one, courtyard or gate, bystanders or relative, all but one disciple or all but two disciples, Galilean accent or previous encounter in the garden, one crow or two; does it really matter? For the Christians who claim there’s not a single contradiction in the entire Bible, it does matter. You can’t get around these, and you can’t get around the dozens, if not hundreds more in the Bible, no matter how insignificant. For the more reasonable Christians who openly admit that sure, they’re ancient documents, there’s the occasional slip-up, but nothing major that affects doctrine, their intellectual honesty is refreshing, but it begs the question, can God’s divine revelation be anything less than perfect? When God sends a final text for all of mankind, shouldn’t it be held to the same standards of holiness and perfection as He himself? Others maintain that as God’s Word incarnate, Jesus himself was the final revelation, and it’s his person that matters, not the text. Yet the text is all we have of him today, and if it contradicts itself, if it can’t be trusted to deliver the truth about the small events, how can we trust its claims about matters as weighty as death and resurrection?

« Older Entries Recent Entries »