After reading an article online, I thought
I had to share it with you guys. I was browsing through a Christian website
where I came across question and answers section, it attracted me to read
through a few questions. When I came across a specific question asked by a person,
I was keen to know the answer, but when I read through it I was laughing at
these bewildered Christian scholars.
Let me show u the question followed by the
answer given by bible expert. ending with my comment
---------------------
Question posed:
SWEATING BLOOD - The Bible states that
Jesus perspired drops of blood. How is that possible?
---------------------
Answer:
Before the crucifixion, as Jesus Christ
prayed in the Garden of Gesthemane, the disciple and physician Luke noted that:
“And being in anguish, he prayed more
earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.” —Luke
22:44 (NKJV)
This was written by the physician Luke, a
well-educated man and a careful observer by profession.
Luke is also the only gospel writer to mention
the bloody sweat, possibly because of his interest as a physician in this rare
physiological phenomenon, which spoke elequently of the intense spiritual agony
Jesus was suffering… (Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defenders Bible, arginal notes
for Luke 22:44)
Although this medical condition is
relatively rare, according to Dr. Frederick Zugibe (Chief Medical Examiner of
Rockland County, New York) it is well-known, and there have been many cases of
it. The clinical term is “hematohidrosis.” “Around the sweat glands, there are
multiple blood vessels in a net-like form.” Under the pressure of great stress
the vessels constrict. Then as the anxiety passes “the blood vessels dilate to
the point of rupture. The blood goes into the sweat glands.” As the sweat glands
are producing a lot of sweat, it pushes the blood to the surface - coming out
as droplets of blood mixed with sweat.
----------------------
My commentary
I must agree that was a hefty academic answer,
by Dr (Chief Medical Examiner of Rockland County, New York) I regards to the
sweating Blood of Jesus,
Now you may think I'm going to refute the doctors
answer, but I'm afraid I'm not that qualified to so refuting a dr with such
high Calibre being labeled as a (Chief Medical Examiner)
I'm no doctor, but I can refute the entire
verse lol.
-------------------------------
(These verses are Luke 22:43-44 “And there
appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an
agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of
blood falling down to the ground.” )
“But those verses are missing from some of
the oldest and best manuscripts of Luke's Gospel.
It turns out that the account in Luke about
Jesus sweating blood as he prays in the garden is missing from our oldest and
best manuscripts. scribes added that because there were debates in the second
and third centuries as to whether Jesus was fully human or not. These verses
were inserted to show he really was human and really did suffer.”
Pulpit Commentary
the oldest authorities omit these last two
verses (43, 44). Their omission in many of these ancient manuscripts was
probably due to mistaken reverence. The two oldest and most authoritative
translations, the Itala (Latin) and Peshito (Syriac), contain them, however, as
do the most important Fathers of the second century, Justin and Irenaeus. We
have, then, apart from the evidence of manuscripts, the testimony of the
earliest Christianity in Italy and Syria, Asia Minor and Gaul, to the
genuineness of these two famous verses. They are printed in the ordinary text
of the Revised English Version, with a side-note alluding to their absence in
some of the ancient authorities.
Bible gateway footnote
Luke 22:44 Many early manuscripts do not
have verses 43 and 44.
---------------
"Luke 22:44 the passage about Jesus
sweating blood indeed it is not found in P75
A D type text Around around 300"
Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations
of the New Testament
By Philip Wesley Comfort
New American Bible (Catholic Comparative
New Testament)
Luke 22: [ 43 And to strengthen him an angel from heaven appeared to him. 44 He
was in such agony and he prayed so fervently that his sweat became like drops
of blood falling on the ground.] Footnote: These verses, though very ancient,
were probably not part of the original text of Lk. They are absent from the
oldest papyrus manuscripts of Lk and from manuscripts of wide geographical
distribution.
The Good News Translation (Catholic
Comparative New Testament) places Luke 22:43-44 in the main body of text with a
footnote that says, Some manuscripts do not have verses 43-44.
The Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible
(Catholic Comparative New Testament) banished Luke 22:43-44 to the footnotes.
The passage is absent from the main body of text. The footnotes says, Other
ancient manuscripts add verses 43 and 44: 43 And there appeared to him an angel
from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed more
earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the
ground.
The New Revised Standard Version Catholic
Bible (Anglicized) (Catholic Comparative New Testament) places Luke 22:43-44 in
the main body of text with a footnote that says, Other ancient manuscripts lack
verses 43 and 44.
-----------------
In short, the passage of SWEATING BLOOD IN
LUKE 22:44 was a later addition, fabricated, Interpolated. The embarrassing part
is, this “Christian” Dr went through a hard time proving a false made up lie,
the SWEATING OF BLOOD. Where was his Holy Ghost out deceiving other Christian?.
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Bruce Metzger pp. 177
One month ago ‘Ishmail/ ismail’ posted a video on youTube titled, “100% Proof the Quran is False”
This is the response to the distortions he presented.
He also used the kunyah of Abu Adam in the past, for his reality also watch this video HERE
The video in question is,
This person has attempted to assert that Hafs bin Sulayman al-Asadi, Abu Umar al-Bazzaz al-Kufi, the reciter and transmitter from Asim was weak and thus the transmission of the Quran is also weak as it is the most widespread transmission of the Qir’ah of the Qur’an.
This is, without any doubt poor understanding of the science of hadith and riwayah, a lack of comprehension as well as sheer ignorance in understanding the difference between narrating ahadith and transmitting a qir’ah of the Quran.
We do not aim to spend too much time explaining this as the point itself is poorly constructed, with deliberate distortions, however, here are some points to consider.
Hafs bin Sulayman (90H – 180H)
There is no doubt that some of scholars of hadith and critical analysts did issue statements weakening Hafs in hadith transmission and hadith in general, however this does not apply to the transmission of the Qur’an and specifically to the Asim mode of transmission of the Quran.
Hafs was raised by Asim in his house as his stepson and thus spent a long time with him. Imam al-Dhahabi mentioned,
“Hafs was reliable in his reading (of the Qur’an), he was accurate and consistent, but not as much in the transmission of hadith.” (Imam Dhahabi, Tabaqat al-Qurra (1:140-141)
Hafs himself said,
“I did not depart from Asim (in his transmission of the mode of the Qur’an) except in ONE WORD..” (Imam Dhahabi,Tabaqat al-Qurra (1:140-141)
Imam al-Dhahabi repeated this point that Hafs was accurate and consistent in his transmission of the Qur’an. It was the norm of the latter day hadith specialists to summarise the view of the earlier scholars, and this is what Imam al-Dhahabi did. (Imam al-Dhahabi, al-Kashif(1:240)
Imam al-Dhahabi also said,
“Hafs was a trustworthy reciter of the Quran and weak in reporting of Hadith because he was not grounded in Hadith like he became very proficient in Quran recitation. Otherwise, he was upright and truthful” (Imam al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-Ei’tidal Fi Naqd al-Rijal (2:319 no.2124)
Furthermore, Shu’bah-Abu Bakr ibn A’yaash also transmitted the mode of the Qur’an transmission from Asim, and thus was a support for this mode of transmission. So, if for arguments sake even if Hafs had some weakness in his transmission of the Qur’an, which of course he did not, he would still be supported by the transmission of Shu’bah.
The scholars have differed as to who was more precise in transmission of the Quran from Asim, whether Shu’bah or Hafs. However, yet still despite this difference they still supported each other.
Imam Ibn Adiyy transmit from Saji, from Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Baghdadi from Yahya ibn Ma’in who said,
“Hafs bin Suleiman and Abu Bakr bin Ayyash were the most knowledgeable amongst anyone in the mode of transmission from Asim, Hafs was more accurate in his transmission of the mode of the Quran transmission but a liar but Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash was truthful.”(Imam Ibn Adiyy, al-Kamil Fi Du’afa al-Rijal (2:275), Hafiz al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal Fi Asma al-Rijal (7:15 no.1390), Hafiz Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib(2:361).
Imam Abu Bakr Khatib al-Baghdadi said,
“The earlier scholars of the Quran declared Hafs to be more precise and accurate than Abu Bakr bin Ayyash (ie Shu’bah) in terms of memorisation (ie transmission) of the Quran..” (Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Madinah al-Baghdad(8:186-188), see also his Muwdeh al-Awham al-Jam’a (2:47-48). Abu Shamah has also transmitted this in his Sharh al-Shatibiyyah)
The detractors, who are ignorant of the sciences of hadith, say Hafs was declared to be a liar. The significance of this is that a narrator being being weak is different from being called a liar as the latter is a severe form of criticism. A narrator being weak in hadith transmission is addressed based on the sciences of hadith but being accused of lying carries a greater sin as well as far reaching implications in the science of narration.
What is further strange and also amusing at the same time, is that the detractor who presents this youtube video (Ishmail, or whatever his name is) inadvertently preserves the sciences of Islam, ie the tajwid or Arabic, and in this way he contributes to the preservation of the Islamic sciences.
Furthermore, whatever religion he follows, will most certainly not have any specialty or special characteristics like Islam does, ie Jarh Wat Ta’dil, Mustalah Hadith, Tarikh, biographical sketch of narrators and so on. Praise be to Allah, The Mighty and Majestic who sent men of standing to contribute and aid the preservation of Islam.
So, the detractors resonate with the words of Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in that he declared Hafs to be a liar, as the guy raves in the youtube video. However, we find that other people who narrate the view of Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in on Hafs do not mention the word liar, and thus is seems it was Imam Yahya ibn Ma’ins earlier or lone view. We have the report of Ali bin al-Hussain bin Hibban who said that Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in said,
“Abu Umar al-Bazzaz’s (ie Hafs) recitation (ie transmission) is more accurate and authentic than Abu Bakr bin Ayyash’s but Abu Bakr is more trustworthy than Abu Umar.” (Hafiz al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal Fi Asma al-Rijal(7:13), Hafiz Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib(2:360 no.1478), Imam al-Dhahabi,Mizan al-Ei’tidal Fi Naqd al-Rijal (2:320)
So, here there is no mention of Hafs being a liar. In another report from Yahya ibn Ma’in via Layth bin al-Ubaid, he said
“Abu ʻUmar Al-Bazzaaz (i.e. Hafs), the Quran reciter, is not trustworthy; however, his recitation is more accurate and correct than that of Abu Bakr ibn ʻAyyaash, and Abu Bakr is more trustworthy than him…”(Imam Ibn Adiyy,al-Kamil Fi Du’afa al-Rijal (2:275)
No mention of liar, furthermore, there is yet another report from Imam Uthman al-Darimi who also asked Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in about Hafs and he said,
“He is not trustworthy.” (Imam Uthman al-Darimi, Tarikh Ibn Ma’in (no.269), Imam al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-Ei’tidal(2:320), Hafiz Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (2:360).
Abu Qudamah al-Sarkhasi also transmitted the same from Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in. (Imam Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wa’l Ta’dil (no.744)
Imam al-Dhahabi in the Mizan transmits from Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Hadhrami, who said,
“I asked Yahya ibn Ma’in about Hafs bin Sulayman-Abi Umar al-Bazzaz, he said, “He is nothing.” (Imam al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-Ei’tidal (2:320)
This shows the view of Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in in Hafs being a liar was not consistent. Furthermore, even if this held to be true it was in relation and specific to hadith transmission.
Another angle to this argument which they put forward is the view of Abdul Rahman bin Yusuf bin Khirash, who also said Hafs was a liar. (Imam Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Madinah al-Baghdad (8:188), Hafiz al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal Fi Asma al-Rijal (7:15), Hafiz Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (2:361).
Again, there are a number of responses, the first being as mentioned earlier, this criticism is specific and restricted to the science of hadith and its transmission, it cannot be applied unrestrictedly to the transmission of the mode of the Quran from Asim.
The criticism of Khirash needs to be reviewed, again for two reasons, no one has accused Hafs of being a liar except an odd report from Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in, which we have explained and secondly the criticism of Khirash is unacceptable because of his Shia roots and thus being biased in it. Any biased criticism is unacceptable especially if they belong to an ardently extreme sect due to the lack of fairness. Although Khirash was a scholar of hadith, any criticism levied against someone based on sectarianism in not accepted unless it is supported by other critical analysts.
Hafiz Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani said,
“Criticism levied against someone as a result of animosity, based on difference in creedal matters must be treated with reservation and one must abstain….. This is the affair with Abdur Rahman bin Yusuf bin Khirash, the scholar of hadith and a Hafiz, for he was from the Ghulatish-Shi’ah (extreme shi’a), rather he had attribution to al-Rafdh (ie Rafidah Shi’a)..” (Hafiz Ibn Hajr, Lisan ul-Mizan(1:108-109).
The statement of these scholars of hadith regarding Hafs were specific to hadith transmission and not the transmission of the Quran. Even if Hafs was considered to be a liar, it is to be restricted and limited to hadith. The same applies to the criticism of Khirash.
An evidence for this is what Imam Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Hatim asked his father, Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi, Ibn Abi Hatim said,
“I asked my father concerning him, he said, “Do not write his HADITH as he is weak in HADITH, he is not truthful (in hadith) and matruk al-Hadith. So I said to him, “What is his affair in the al-Haruf (ie mode of transmission of the Quran).?” He replied, “Abu Bakr bin Ayyash is more grounded than him.” (al-Jarh wa’l Ta’dil(no.744), Hafiz al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal Fi Asma al-Rijal (7:14-15), Hafiz Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (2:361).
Let us assume for arguments sake that Hafs was weak in transmitting the Quran, we say this is not problematic at all because Abu Bakr bin Ayyash ie Shu’bah followed up Hafs’s transmission of the Quran and thus acts as a supporting narrator. What must be duly noted and understood well is that, the transmission of the Quran was not like the transmission of hadith. With the ahadith varying with so many different chains and narrators etc, the transmission of the Quran was exact, it was the transmission of oft repeated words. Unlike the hadith, the wording of the Quran was fixed, permanent and universal.
The chains of Hafs and Shu’bah both went back to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ through the companions and hence both transmission of the same mode support each other. Moreover, the core transmission of the different modes of the Quran was similar except where they differed and even for that Hafs had support, Hafs himself said that Asim told him,
“The reading which I have taught you is the one I learned from Abu Abdur Rahman al-Sulami who transmitted it from Ali (bin abi Talib). And the reading that I taught Abu Bakr bin Ayyash is the one that I presented to Dharr bin Hubaysh, which is the transmission he received from Abdullah ibn Mas’ud.”(Imam al-Dhahabi, Tabaqat al-Qurra(1:88,92)
Let us now look at Shu’bah, who supported the transmission of Hafs from Asim. Shu’bah-Abu Bakr bin Ayyash, he was born in 95H and died around 193-194H. had recited the transmission to Asim three times, also to A’ta bin Sa’ib and Aslam al-Manqari. He continued to recite and teach until 7 years before his death, ie around until 186H-187H. He had recited the Quran 18,000 times. Imam al-Dhahabi, Tabaqat al-Qurra (1:138)
What we find from this is that based on simple maths it is apparent that Shu’bah completed the recitation of the Quran every 2-3 days. For over 90 years. With this level of recitation, there is only but precision, accuracy and meticulousness. It is not like some bible missionary book that is read a few times and the bible basher thinks he has reached the epitome of memorization, one must apply his common sense.
Both reciters supported each others transmission from Asim, with the time, effort and decades they devoted to the Quran, the experts they had become in every aspect of precision and accuracy was perhaps second to none based on approximately 185 years of dedication to the Quran. Shu’bah lived longer and hence continued teaching the mode of the transmission even after Hafs had passed away.
How is it then, that the likes of Ishmail, the self styled detractor, in his clumpy presentation of this video glossed over these facts and research. When a person is filled and fuelled by hate and enmity, the human mind will resent and reject all truth and reality based on academic research, do not push yourselves away by watching ponzy, poorly researched and deliberately distorted video’s.
Let us show you a few examples in how the presenter of this video, deliberately distorts and manipulates the facts to suit his whims and desires in order to prove his dejected argument.
Remember dear readers, the clumsy presenter says the reliability, trustworthiness and honesty of Hafs is the most important question and then digresses into his points, but dear readers we will show you how he himself has been deceptive, dishonest and deliberately distorted the facts in the video.
Point 1 (Time stamp 4:02)
He presets and reads from English translation of the Musnad Ahmad, hadith no.1268 and says the respective hadith is Da’if Jiddan ie very weak and then goes onto disturbingly deceptively lie by saying the weakness is due to Hafs. However, in the comments it clearly says the chain is weak due to the weakness of Amr bin Uthman, Hafs bin Abu Umar al-Qari and that Kathir bin Zadhan is majhul ie unknown. So he lies and presents his arguments as if the hadith is very weak only due to the presence of Hafs, when there are other problems with the chain, with the more problematic one being that of Kathir, as he was unknown.
Point 2 (time stamp 4:36)
The clumsy dude reads from the Arabic notes to the hadith and questions and reads the words Matruk al-Hadith ie he is rejected in HADITH, while this dude is presenting his flimsy argument about Hafs’s Quran transmission. How does that even make sense?
Then he goes onto mention the charge that Hafs would borrow books to copy them without returning them. He, for whatever reasons, does not mention the charge is by Shu’bah, so that the non Arabic listeners are none the wiser. The charge was levied by Shu’bah, who was from his Mu’assirin, Ie his contemporary, and we know from hadith sciences that criticism levied by contemporaries is not accepted without evidence and neither is this considered detailed criticism. (Refer to the general books of hadith sciences).
The point by Muhammad Mustafa al-A’zami is the same point, that Hafs would borrow books from other people and add them to his own books. This is nothing strange and most certainly not plagiarism because this was the norm. Everyone would borrow books from each other and copy them into their books ie ahadith and so on. If one was to read the biographical notes on well known and powerful narrators, they will see that this was the norm. How can this clumsy chap even claim this was plagiarism? Such levels of immature, desperate and frantic deductions are laughable and outright shoddy, to be quite frank.
It is possible only Shu’bahs book was not returned, for whatever reason, and the charge was changed to the notion that he would borrow books from people (plural) and never return them, when in actual reality the charge was an isolated incident. Dear readers, furthermore, if a friend borrows a book from you and they forget to return it for whatever reason, or they posted it via normal post, or sent it via courier and you don’t receive it, you don’t start labelling that person etc.
This is why when contemporaries have personal differences, their points against each other need to be objectively reviewed. There are many examples like this in the biographical notes of the narrators and the scholars of Islam have alluded to them in their respective books.
This is the reality of this debunked and flimsy youtube video, that the criticism levied against Hafs is specific to Hadith transmission and not his transmission of the Quran. Perhaps the chap can, in the future, keep his ground breaking research private and not embarrass himself.
Rabbi Yaron Reuven proves the Torah is
Divine by a fish? What's worse he lies by claiming the Torah says, "you'll
find a fish with just fins, but you'll never find a fish with just
scales". A blatant lie by the rabbi, no such saying is found anywhere in
the Torah, if so maybe the rabbi can show us. Why didn't the rabbi quote the
chapter and verse or even the book? Interestingly, this saying is found in the
Talmud, which the rabbis takes as the Torah.
We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Nidda
51b): Any fish that has scales certainly has fins, but there are fish that have
fins and do not have scales. Any fish that has scales and fins is a kosher
fish. If it has fins but no scales, it is a non-kosher fish. (Talmud
Chullin 66b)
If this is the way to prove the Torah by lying,
then well done. Rabbis used the Oral Law to prove the Torah? We'll ignore the
first part about kosher, which really took the biscuit.
Even if we take the rabbis Talmudic saying
as proof, does it really stand the test? The answer is no.
Okay so a fish is a limbless cold-blooded
vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water. So, saying
you will never find a fish without fins is contradicting the definition of a
fish. There are plenty of fish without scales, but none without fins, why?
Because that's the sole definition of a fish. So next time a rabbi uses this as
proof, ask him this. What is a fish? If a fish is still considered a fish even
when it doesn't have fins, then whats a fish? If a "fish" is animal
that lives in the ocean than I can give you hundreds with scales and no fins.
12 Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you didn’t believe in
me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall
not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.”
13 These are the waters of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove
with Yahweh, and he was sanctified in them. And Mosessaid, “Lord Yahweh, you have begun to
show your servant your greatness
and your strong hand; for what
god is there in heaven or on earth who can act according toyour works, and according to your mighty
deeds? Please let me cross over
and see that good land that
is beyond the Jordan, those good mountains, and Lebanon.” But Yahwehsaid to Moses, “Enough. Speak to me no more about this matter. Go up to the
top of Pisgah and lift up your
eyes to the west and to the north
and to the south and to the east, and see it with your eyes, for you
shall not cross over this Jordan.(Numbers 20:12-13 DSS 4Q27
fragment)
The above scripture was taken from the DSS fragments
found in the Qumran caves. The interesting part is in verse 13. The Masoretic
version does not have the following section.
“And Mosessaid, “Lord Yahweh, you have begun to
show your servant your greatness
and your strong hand; for what
god is there in heaven or on earth who can act according to your works, and according to your
mighty deeds? Please let me cross
over and see that good land that
is beyond the Jordan, those good mountains, and Lebanon.” But Yahweh said to Moses, “Enough. Speak to me no more about this matter. Go up to the
top of Pisgah and lift up your
eyes to the west and to the north
and to the south and to the east, and see it with your eyes, for you shall
not cross over this Jordan.”
Take in account what Moses said to Yahweh.
“for
what god is there in heaven or on earth who can act according to your works,
and according to your mighty deeds?”
If Jesus was with God from the beginning as found
in the gospel of John, why then didn’t Yahweh declare it to Moses? Was this not the
best time to announce and make mention of his son who is also God with him as
John claimed? Why was Yahweh silent? This goes to show Yahweh had no son with
him from the beginning of time. John 1:1 was nothing but a lie.
In fact the verse
carries on showing the anger Yahweh had towards Moses after he allegedy
disobeyed God.
“But Yahweh said to Moses,
“Enough. Speak to me no
more about this matter. Go up to the
top of Pisgah and lift up your
eyes to the west and to the north
and to the south and to the east, and see it with your eyes, for you shall
not cross over this Jordan.”
This would have ideally been the moment when Yahweh could have revealed
his “son Jesus” to Moses. Yahweh had the chance to show Moses his “son” would
not disobey him and complete his work. It’s
clear from the text, Yahweh had no knowledge of another God or son who was side
by side with him. John 1:1 is nothing but a fraud and deceptive saying which has
no support from the Hebrew Bible.
Hard evidence Jesus openly lied. (a
challenge to Christians to prove us wrong)
You may ask in your heart, “How can we
recognize a message that the LORD has not spoken?” When a prophet speaks
in the name of the LORD and the message does not come to pass or come true,
that is a message the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken
presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)
Lets, find out if Jesus of the New Testament qualifies
as a Prophet
Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said
to him: "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you." But he answered
them: "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign
shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was
three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man
be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."(Matthew
12:38--40)
------------
My challenge is show us one evidence from
any of the gospels where the Jews witnessed Jesus resurrect as the sign he
offered them. We are told his disciples witnessed him, but the challenge was
given to the Pharisees Jews rabbis not the disciples. Bring your evidence if
you are truthful. Also, what makes one laugh is, Christians pretend they get
signs from Jesus saying, Jesus came to them or spoke to them or touched them,
yet when the main head Jews of that time asked for a sign from Jesus and they
got nothing.
In short:
WHAT JEWISH RABBI OR PHARISEE SAW JESUS
AFTER 3 DAYS & 3 NIGHTS. SHOW US THAT YOUR JESUS DID NOT LIE TO THE JEWS!
Pull
out the verse to prove he didn't lie. However, if you can't show us from the
bible show us from any of the Jewish writers of Sanhedrin? You can use the
Talmud. Don’t hesitate to bring it on.
“He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall
flow rivers of living water.'” (John 7:38)
An open challenge to Christians and Jews from
any part of the world to show where such saying can be found in the modern day
Tanack?
Thus, don’t you dare say where is the name of
Prophet Muhammed Pbuh in the bible as found in the Quran.You guys can't even show us a oneline
sentence which was uttered by your Jesus who claimed it was mentioned in the
very scripture’s you guys say was persevered and not corrupted, so where is it?
Second point
He said to them, "This is what I told
you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written
about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." Then he opened
their minds to understand the Scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is
written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third
day: (Luke 24:44-46)
--------------------
Please show us from the "Law of
Moses" where this fulfilment is mentioned and where it says, "Christ
to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day". Just provide us with
the chapter and verse from the Torah. we'll get to the other scriptures later,
for now let's stick to the "Law of Moses" and see how truthful your
man-god really was.
please provide us with clear-cut; explicit
verse, not any text where you have to decipher it. this shouldn't be difficult
since Jesus "opened the minds" of his followers to understand the OT
scriptures, the question is which ones?
Then he opened their minds so they could
understand the Scriptures. (Luke 24:45)
you Christians claim the "holy
ghost" is guiding you and helps you understand scriptures, so then this
would be a piece of cake for you to show us, right?
Third point
Women should remain silent in the churches.
They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. (1
Corinthians 14:34)
Question: what law says women should remain
silent in churches? In what book of the Pentateuch out of the 613 laws do we
find this law? Do you see where we are getting at. Christians need to stop
embarrassing themselves by asking us where the name of Prophet Muhammed Pbuh is
found in the Bible when they can't even show us the saying uttered by Jesus
within the scriptures.
Now coming to the verse from the Quran
mentioning Prophet Muhammed Pbuh.
Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find
written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them
what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good
things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and
the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored
him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is
those who will be the successful. (Surah 7:157)
Notice how Christians try to add their own
twist to the text. What they did to their scriptures, Christians are trying to
do it on ours, but instead they fail. The verse says "Those who follow the
apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures)"
"whom
they find written"the
Arabic word used is (maktūban
written). The verse does not say you will find his "name" in the
bible, rather written about him, i.e. description. Muslims throughout time have
given multiple descriptions of Prophet Muhammed Pbuh from the Bible, which
Christians reject. Again, Christians were chasing something which wasn't even
mentioned, this shows how deluded these Christians are.
So, before Christians jump on Muslims asking
us to show the "name" of Prophet Muhammed Pbuh in the Bible, maybe
they should first look for the saying of the Jesus which apparently was quoted
from the Torah.
See if you guys can hack that!
--------------------------
If you’re looking for the name of
Prophet Muhammed Pbuh in your scripture then you taking the wrong route. The
Quran does not say you will find his name (إسمه ismuhu), rather the Quran says in Surah 7:157
you will find his written description (مَكْتُوبًا maktuban), be consistent.
------------------------------------
Scripture where is this saying found?
And after that he gave to them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. (Acts 13:20)
Wrong according to 1 kings 6:1
In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD. (1 kings 6:1 )
He gave unto them judges - Men who were raised up in an extraordinary manner to administer the affairs of the nation, to defend it from enemies, etc. See Judges 2:16.
About the space of four hundred and fifty years - This is a most difficult passage, and has exercised all the ingenuity of chronologists. The ancient versions agree with the present Greek text. The difficulty has been to reconcile it with what is said in 1 Kings 6:1, "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel ...he began to build the house of the Lord." Now if to the 40 years that the children of Israel were in the wilderness there be added the 450 said in Acts to have been passed under the administration of the judges, and about 17 years of the time of Joshua, 40 years for Samuel and the reign of Saul together, and 40 years for the reign of David, and three years of Solomon before he began to build the temple, the sum will be 590 years, a period greater by 110 years than that mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1. Various ways have been proposed to meet the difficulty.
(20) After that he gave unto them judges . . .—The statement in the text, assigning 450 years to the period of the judges, and apparently reckoning that period from the distribution of the conquered territory, is at variance with that in 1Kings 6:1, which gives 480 years as the period intervening between the Exodus and the building of the temple. The better MSS., however, give a different reading—“He gave their land to them as an inheritance, about 450 years, and after these things he gave unto them judges,” the 450 years in this case being referred to the interval between the choice of “our fathers,” which may be reckoned from the birth of Isaac (B.C. 1897 according to the received chronology) to the distribution of the conquered country in B.C. 1444. So far as any great discrepancy is concerned, this is a sufficient explanation, but what has been said before as to the general tendency in a discourse of this kind to rest in round numbers, has also to be remembered. (See Note on Acts 7:6.) Josephus (Ant. viii. 3, § 1) gives 592 years from the Exodus to the building of Solomon’s Temple. Of this period sixty-five years were occupied by the wanderings in the wilderness and the conquest under Joshua, eighty-four by the reigns of Saul and David and the first four years of Solomon, leaving 443 years for the period of the Judges. This agrees, it will be seen, sufficiently with the Received text in this passage, but leaves the discrepancy with 1Kings 6:1 unexplained. There would of course, be nothing strange in St. Paul’s following the same traditional chronology as Josephus, even where it differed from that of the present Hebrew text of the Old Testament.
Then the people asked for a king, and he gave them Saul son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years (Acts 13:21)
Gross error, according to the Hebrew Bible Tanack, 1 Samuel 13:1 Saul rules for two years. The NIV says 42 years. Kjv also agrees with the Hebrew Bible saying 2 years.
And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’ (Acts 13:22)
Where is this saying found in the Tanack, "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will." ------
Guys where is
this found in the Old Testament?
Or haven't you read
in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath
and yet are innocent? (Matthew 12:5)
Why
don’t Christians and Jews except Prophet Muhammed Pbuh as the Messenger of God,
when their very Bible confirms the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammed Pbuh as a
Chosen Messenger of God Almighty. The earliest and most ancient written
biblical text confirms this.
The
DSS fragments found in the Qumran caves 1QIsaa reveal the distortion found in the
Masoretic text which was written during the 10th century, the Aleppo Codex.
Now
let's show the Christians and Jews where Prophet Muhammed Pbuh is mentioned in
their scriptures are the chosen Messenger of God
"Behold
my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my
Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations. (Isaiah 42:1)
אֶתְמָךְ־ Etmc in Hebrew is
used for servant. Interestingly the DSS fragments which were found in the
Qumran caves 1QIsaa don’t use the word אֶתְמָךְ־ Etmc, rather it says Ahmd אחמד.
The
original reading should read
Behold
my servant, (Ahmd אחמד) Ahmed, my chosen,
in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth
justice to the nations. (Isaiah 42:1)
The
is undeniable proof from the own ancient texts, which were hidden for centuries
in jar proving the authenticity of Prophet Muhammed Pbuh. The Messenger of God
who identity was hidden by the Masoretic text. Christians and Jews must submit
and accept Prophet Muhammed Pbuh as the Chosen Messenger of God as mentioned in
the earliest texts of Isaiah. Christians and Jews must also accept this
unforgivable distortion by the scribes purely out of hatred for an Arab
Prophet.
If
only our Christian and Jewish friends study the DSS of Isaiah with an open
mind, then they'll come to accept the truth and final Messenger Prophet
Muhammed Pbuh the Chosen One of God.
What
did King Jehoshaphat the son of Asa say to his congregation before the their
battle with Moabites, Ammonites and Ammonim?
…Hear
me, O Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: Believe in the LORD your God, and you
will be upheld; believe in His Prophets, and you will succeed." (2
Chronicles 20:20)
"Believe in the LORD your God, and you
will be upheld; believe in His Prophets, and you will succeed." thus,
believing in God and his Prophets is the will make you establish and succeed. If
he cross reference this with Isaiah 42:1 "Behold my servant, (Ahmd אחמד) Ahmed, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put
my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations." we can
conclude, both Christians and Jews must believe in Prophet Muhammed Pbuh to
succeed.
