Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun: Did Jesus Contradict Himself? - Part 1.

Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun

Did Jesus Contradict Himself?

By Abdullah Smith

[Part I] [Part II]

 

 

The arrogant Shamoun has written a rebuttal to my article Jesus Contradicts Himself, which has quotations to prove the Gospels have been altered, especially in 506 CE. There are no complete manuscripts of the Gospels prior to the Council of Nicea, only fragments discovered in garbage heaps:

"...the early Christians evidently saw no need to preserve their original texts for antiquarian or other reasons. Had they been more fully cognizant of what happens to documents that are copied by hand, however, especially by hands that are not professionally trained for the job, they may have exercised greater caution in preserving the originals. As it is, for whatever historical reasons, the originals no longer survive. What do survive are copies of the originals, or, to be more precise, copies made from the copies of the copies of the originals, thousands of these subsequent copies, dating from the 2nd to the 16th centuries, some of them tiny fragments the size of a credit card, uncovered in garbage heaps buried in the sands of Egypt, others of them enormous and elegant tomes preserved in the great libraries and monasteries of Europe."   ["Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies." The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures Duke Divinity School 1997 Lecture One: "Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text" Delivered by Bart Ehram]

The oldest text of the Gospels in Aleph known as the Codex Sinaiticus dates from the 4th century. Manuscripts that existed before the Council are not identical with the “contemporary” manuscript we have today, that is Codex Koridethi of the 9th century is different from papyrus manuscripts like P66, P75, and P52, which are dated prior to the Council of Nicea.

The Church Father Tertullian (d. 220) states the Gospel had been adulterated:

You have now our answer to the Antitheses compendiously indicated by us. I pass on to give a proof of the Gospel--not, to be sure, of Jewry, but of Pontus--having become meanwhile adulterated; and this shall indicate the order by which we proceed. (Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 2)

For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the rest of the apostles as Christ Himself. But those writings which are falsely inscribed with their name, we as experienced persons reject, knowing that no such writings have been handed down to us. (St.Serapion,bishop of Antioch, 190-211)

 

Toland, in his book The Nazarenes, records these words of Irenaeus, who was one of the early Unitarian martyrs:

 

“In order to amaze the simple and such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of Truth, they obtrude upon them an inexpressible multitude of apocryphal and spurious scriptures of their own devising.

 

Toland continues:

 

We know already to what degree imposture and credulity went hand in hand in the primitive times of the Christian Church, the last being as ready to receive as the first was to forge books…This evil grew afterwards not only greater when the Monks were the sole transcribers and the sole keepers of all books good or bad, but in process of time it became almost absolutely impossible to distinguish history from fable, or truth from error as to the beginning and original monuments of Christianity…

 

How immediate successors of the Apostles could so grossly confound the genuine teaching of their masters with such as were falsely attributed to them? Or since they were in the dark about these matters so early how came such as followed them by a better light? And observing that such Apocryphal books were often put upon the same footing with the canonical books by the Fathers, and the first cited as Divine Scriptures no less than the last, or sometimes, when such as we reckon divine were disallowed by them. I propose these two other questions: Why all the books cited as genuine by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian and the rest of such writers should not be accounted equally authentic? And what stress should be laid on the testimony of those Fathers who not only contradict one another but are also often inconsistent with themselves in their relations of the very same facts? (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, pp. 74-75)

 

 

HE WROTE:

Osama has recruited some new writers whom he thinks will be able to write rebuttals refuting the Holy Bible and Christianity. One such writer who has been desperately trying to expose the Holy Bible is a convert to Islam named Abdullah Smith. Mr. Smith has recently published a paper where he presents passages showing that the Lord Jesus allegedly contradicted himself (here).

Since this paper is pretty much representative of the kind of quality and level of argumentation Osama’s new batch of writers are producing, we decided to address the points raised by Mr. Smith in order to show that there is no substance to any of the charges.

 

RESPONSE:

There is absolutely no doubt that Shamoun has not studied the Bible’s true origins, he probably knows the Bible is written by anonymous authors, full of sex literature and mythology of which Muslims may also be discredited because they profess to believe in these Prophetic stories on the basis of God’s inspiration. For example, the Holy Quran and the Bible record that Jesus was born of a virgin. Yet many ‘saviors’ of the Mystery Religions were born of virgins’.

Among the parallels offered for the virginal conception of Jesus have been the conceptions of figures in world religions (the Buddha, Krishna, and the son of Zoroaster), in Greco-Roman mythology (Perseus, Romulus), in Egyptian and Classical History (the Pharaohs, Alexander, Augustus), and among famous philosophers or religious thinkers (Plato, Apollonius of Tyana), to name only a few. (The Birth of the Messiah, by Raymond E. Brown, Doubleday: 1993)

"In the Sanskrit dictionary, compiled more than two thousand years ago, we have the whole history of the incarnate deity, born of a virgin, and miraculously escaping in infancy from the reigning tyrant of his country." (Asiatic Researches, Vol. I, p. 273).

 

But in contrast to the Bible, the Holy Quran corrects many of the Bible’s historical errors. The following quotation from a Muslim scholar discusses the Flood of Noah and compares it to the Quran:

The Holy Qur’an saves the revelations within the Bible. This demonstrated in the story of Noah’s Flood.

 

When seen in the light of modern knowledge, the Biblical description of the Flood as a Whole is unacceptable for the following reasons:

 

The Old Testament describes the Flood as a event which covered the entire world.

 

The Flood of Noah described in the Bible is estimated to a date in which a international Flood could not have occurred

 

The Sacerdotal narration states quite precisely that the Flood took place when Noah was 600 years old. According to the genealogies in chapter 5 of Genesis

 

When we relate this to the age of Adam along with the age of Abraham in the Bible (Genesis 11: 10-32), we calculate the Flood would be situated in the Twenty-first Twenty-second century B.C.

 

Knowledge of history during this time period would show it was a time of prosperity with civilizations such as Egyptian’s Eleventh Dynasty and Babylonia’s Third Dynasty at Ur in which we know for certain there were no breaks in these civilizations. Therefore to make such a claim that everything on earth was destroyed as the Bible claims (Genesis 7:21) is unsupported.

 

On the other hand, the Qur’an gives general details which do not promote any criticisms from a historical point of view.

 

In The Qur’an 11:25-49, Sura 71, and 26: 105-115, we see God inflicted on communities guilty of gravely infringing His Commandments. Whereas the Bible describes a universal Flood intended to punish ungodly humanity as a whole.

 

The Qur’an, in contrast, mentions several punishments inflicted on certain specifically defined communities. This is viewed in 25: 35-39,

 

"We gave Moses the Scripture and appointed his brother Aaron with him as vizier. We said: Go to the people who have denied Our signs. We destroyed them completely. When the people of Noah denied the Messengers, We drowned them and We made of them a sign for mankind. (We destroyed the tribes) of Ad and Tamud, the companions of Rass and many generations between them. We warned each of them by examples and We annihilated them completely."

 

 

Sura 7, verses 59 to 93 contains a reminder of the punishments brought upon Noah’s people, the Ad, the Tamud, Lot (Sodom) and Madian respectively.

 

This is the method of how the Qur’an saves the Bible in the narration of the Flood of Noah, as in the case of Saving the Bible from Darwin, the case of the Flood could also not be verified until centuries after the Prophet Muhammad. (Muhammad Ghounem, Quranic corrections of the Jewish Bible, p. 8-10)

 

The Qur’an mentions about the ark of Noah: “The Ark came to rest upon Mount Judi” (11:44). Recent archeological research has discovered a boat shaped object with exactly the same dimensions as those of the Ark on Mount Judi. The Bible claims that the Ark came to rest twenty miles away on the Mountains of Ararat. This is not possible, since these mountains are a recent geological formation, and did not exist at the time of Noah. The Qur’an also refers to the flood as a localised event, destroying only Noah’s people. The dates and time offered by the Bible for the flood, and its claim that it was a world wide cataclysm, has been proven false by all archeological evidence. (Shaikh ‘Abdur-Raheem Green paper)

 

The Holy Quran corrects the Bible on the title of “Pharoah”

The Qur’an describes the ruler of Egypt being addressed as “King” in the time of Joseph, whilst Moses addresses the ruler as “Pharaoh”. This is a small but telling accuracy, for in the time of Joseph the rulers were from the Hykos Dynasty, and were Semites. They did not refer to themselves as “Pharaohs”. The term was used by the native Egyptian dynasties that supplanted the Hykos, in the time of Moses. The Bible again proves inaccurate on this point referring to both as “Pharaoh”. The Qur’an also correctly describes aspects of the ancient Egyptian religion, in particular the worship of Pharaoh as a god. (ibid)

I recommend the following books that expose the Bible:

101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History, written by Gary Greenberg

Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, by Lloyd Graham

Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions, written by T. W. Doane

The X-Rated Bible: An Irreverent Survey of Sex in the Scriptures, written by Ben Edward Akerley

 

SHAMOUN:

First Contradiction

"If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid (John 8:14)

Contradicts:

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. (John 5:31)

RESPONSE:

Let us read the immediate contexts of the above references in order to get a fuller understanding of what is actually being said:

"So the Pharisees said to him, ‘You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.’ Jesus answered, ‘EVEN IF I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, FOR I KNOW WHERE I CAME FROM AND WHERE I AM GOING, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two men is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.’ They said to him therefore, ‘Where is your Father?’ Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.’" John 8:13-19

In this passage Jesus is speaking in reference to himself, that as far as he is concerned his testimony is valid on the basis of his awareness of who is and where he came from. In other words, Christ is stating that EVEN IF he were to testify about himself this would be valid because of who he is, the Son of God. But realizing that the Jews didn’t know who he was Christ goes on to produce another witness on his behalf, namely the testimony of the Father, in order to convince them that he had come from God. He repeats this point regarding the Jews needing witnesses in the next passage cited by the author:

"I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not deemed true. There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true. You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" John 5:31-47

In this context, Jesus states that as far as the Jews are concerned his testimony is invalid. That is why he appeals to the testimony of John, his miracles, the Father, the scriptures and Moses for verification of his divine claims. But even here Jesus repeats the point he made in John 8, namely, he doesn’t need the witness or testimony of men because he knows who he is and where he came from.

 

RESPONSE:

 

Let us quote the King James Version of this particular passage, which is far superior to many other Bible versions. According to Jimmy Swaggart, the KJV is the ‘most reliable’ version based on the Majority Greek text pre-dating the English Standard Version that comes from the late Alexandrian text. Why is Shamoun using the English Standard Version? At least 95% of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are Byzantine! I use the NIV for the sake of clarity, but Shamoun is apparently using the Westcott and Hort rendition.

 

The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come. Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come. (John 8:13-20)

 

The correct translation from the Greek is “record” (Byzantine) and not “testimony” which is Alexandrian. Now, if Jesus’ record is true, why did he misquote the Old Testament?  Why did he tell false prophecies?

 

 

(1)  Jesus broke his promise about the Second Coming:

 

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24: 4-8, 20-35)

 

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)

 

 

Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:36, Mark 13:30 Luke 21:31)

 

 

Jesus did not return during the generation of his people, and so the prophecy failed. Many early Christian sects were disappointed, the Gospels record Jesus saying he would ‘return’ very shortly (Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, Revelations 22:7, 12, 20) which sadly never happened.

 

At first, the Christian community expected an imminent return of Christ. We are told that during the first century AD, the Christian community looked forward to the imminent return of Christ in glory and the establishment of the Kingdom. This hope carried on in the second century. When the second coming failed to occur, the church organized itself as a permanent institution under the leadership of its bishops. (What did Jesus Really Say? Misha’al Ibn Abdullah Al-Kadhi)

Second Thessalonians was forged in Paul’s name shortly after his death or during the late stages of his imprisonment in Rome. Scholars believe it was written to offset the disappointment and unrest then rising in the Christian community resulting from the unfulfilled promise of an imminent second coming (2 Thes. 2:1-8). (Eddy, Patricia G., Who Tampered With the Bible?, p. 184)

 

(2)  Jesus misquoted the Old Testament:

According to Matthew 13:35, Jesus misquotes the Psalms

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

However, Psalm 78:2-3 is completely different. "I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark [ancient] sayings of old: Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us."

The contradiction does exist, or was Jesus telling a lie?

 

The Gospels mention the story of how David ate bread “in the days of Abiathar”

 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? (Mark 2:25-26)

The passage is misquoting 1 Samuels 21:1-8, it never says David “ate the bread”, and it was during the time of Ahimleach and not Abiathar!

According to Matthew 12:5, Jesus refers to the story of how priests “profaned the Sabbath”.

Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? (12:5)

There is no story of priests “profaning the Sabbath” in the Old Testament. Jesus used this mythical story as an excuse for breaking the Sabbath.

 

 

(3)  Jesus Quotes Unknown Scripture!

 

Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." (John 7:38)

 

 

* There is no verse in the Old Testament about “streams will flow from within him”.

 

 

Because of this, God in his wisdom said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.' (Luke 11:49)

 

 

* God never said this; the Old Testament does not record this saying.

 

 

That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:4)

 

 

* There is no such thing as a “third day” prophecy in the Old Testament

 

http://www../library/magazines/tsr/1996/2/2third96.html

 

Jesus claimed another fulfillment of nonprophecy in Luke 24:46. Speaking to his disciples on the night of his alleged resurrection, he said, "Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day." That the resurrection of Christ on the third day was prophesied in the scriptures was claimed also by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4: "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures." In two different places, then, New Testament writers claimed that the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day had been predicted in the scriptures. Try as they may, however, bibliolaters cannot produce an Old Testament passage that made this alleged third-day prediction. It simply doesn't exist. http://www../library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html

 

 

 

(4)  Jesus Told False Prophecies!

 

(1)

 

In Matthew 26:34 and Luke 22:34, it is prophesied that before the cock crows, Peter will deny Jesus three times, but according to Mark 14:66-68, Peter denied Jesus only once before the cock crowed.

 

Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me." (Luke 22:34)

 

Let us quote Mark:

 

 

While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him.
      "You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus," she said.

68 But he denied it. "I don't know or understand what you're talking about," he said, and went out into the entryway.

When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, "This fellow is one of them." Again he denied it.
      After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean."

He began to call down curses on himself, and he swore to them, "I don't know this man you're talking about."

72 Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: "Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times." And he broke down and wept. (Mark 14:66-68)

 

The footnote regarding Mark 14:68 says:

 

Some early manuscripts entryway and the rooster crowed

 

The prophecy of Jesus failed, because the rooster crowed after Peter denied Jesus once.

 

 

The footnote regarding Mark 14:72 says:

 

Some early manuscripts do not have the second time.

 

 

The footnote regarding Mark 14:72 says:

 

Some early manuscripts do not have twice.

 

 

Apparently, the scribes added words to forge a “fulfillment” of this prophecy, because Peter denied Jesus only once before the cock crowed.

 

 

 

(2)

 

Jesus told false prophecies in the Gospel of John:

 

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. (John 6:39)

 

Contradicted by:

 

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. (John 17:12)

 

Obviously, the scripture was not fulfilled, the prophecy of John 6:39 failed.

Please visit:

(http://www../library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html)

 

The Pharisee passages in the Gospels were later interpolations to the text. The passage John 8:13-20 is clearly not historical. And there’s alarming evidence that Jesus himself was a Pharisee belonging to the sect, as the Talmudic scholar Hyam Maccoby demonstrates in his book The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity:

 

 

Jesus and his immediate followers were Pharisees. Jesus had no intention of founding a new religion. He regarded himself as the Messiah in the normal Jewish sense of the term, i.e. a human leader who would restore the Jewish monarchy, drive out the Roman invaders, set up an independent Jewish state, and inaugurate an era of peace, justice and prosperity (known as 'the kingdom of God,) for the whole world. Jesus believed himself to be the figure prophesied in the Hebrew Bible who would do all these things. He was not a militarist and did not build up an army to fight the Romans, since he believed that God would perform a great miracle to break the power of Rome. This miracle would take place on the Mount of Olives, as prophesied in the book of Zechariah. When this miracle did not occur, his mission had failed. He had no intention of being crucified in order to save mankind from eternal damnation by his sacrifice. He never regarded himself as a divine being, and would have regarded such an idea as pagan and idolatrous, an infringement of the first of the Ten Commandments. (The Problem of Paul)

 

Many parables of Jesus were interpolated:

 

In addition, the theme of future judgment is inherent in many of Jesus’ most significant parables; see, for example, the adversary (Matt. 5:25-26; Luke 12:57-59), the two houses (Matt. 7:24-27; Luke 6:47-49), the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26-29), the laborers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16), the friend at midnight (Luke 11:5-8), the rich fool (Luke 12:16-21), the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), and the importunate widow (Luke 18:1-6). While it may be the case that all or part of some of these parables were created in the light of conditions in the early church—and such judgments can never achieve certainty—methodologically, it cannot be too strongly emphasized that such ‘inauthentic’ materials often represent some degree of continuity with the teaching and situation of Jesus. (http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/Jesus.htm)

 

 

The scholar Hyam Maccoby proves that the Pharisee passages were later interpolations by the Church.

 

 

Shamoun apparently doesn’t know that Jesus contradicted himself about whether the Jews knew where he came from:

 

(1)

 

 

"So the Pharisees said to him, ‘You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.’ Jesus answered, ‘Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. (John 8:14)

 

 

Contradicted by:

 

But we know where this man is from; when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from." Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, but I know him because I am from him and he sent me." (John 7:27-29)

I have quoted the full context of this passage as provided, Jesus was teaching in the Temple grounds and told the Jews “Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from” which contradicts what he said in John 8:14 quite blatantly. Compare the two sayings together without the context, and it will read:

“But you do not know where I come from or where I am going”. (John 8:14)

"Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from”. (John 7:27)

In both of these passages, Jesus was speaking to the Jews.

 

(2)

Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, (John 7:28)

Contradicted by:

"You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. (John 8:20)

 

(3) Jesus was sinful?

Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? (John 8:46)

Contradicted by:

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (Mark 1:14)

 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. (Matthew 3:13)

According to the Bible, Jesus was a repentant sinner!

 

(4)

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: (John 16:8)

Contradicted by:

[Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (John 14:17)

 

(5)

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Matthew 12:28)

Contradicted by:

But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. (Luke 11:20)

 

During his hearing before the high priest, Jesus says, "I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing" (John 18:20 (NKJ)). But the New Testament shows that this is untrue. Jesus did not always teach in synagogues and in the temple. He taught on a mountain (Matthew 5:1-2), on a boat (Matthew 13:1-35), on a plain (Luke 6:17-49), and in houses too (Luke 5:17-19). So Jesus lied about where he had been teaching. http://www.theism.net/article/7

 

Concerning the passage John 8:13-19, Shamoun states the following:

In this passage Jesus is speaking in reference to himself, that as far as he is concerned his testimony is valid on the basis of his awareness of who is and where he came from. In other words, Christ is stating that EVEN IF he were to testify about himself this would be valid because of who he is, the Son of God.

 

RESPONSE:

There are several problems that arise here.

First it’s amazing and strange how Jesus testified that John the Baptist is greater than him (Matthew 11:11) a Prophet who performed absolutely no miracles (John 10:41) is superior to Jesus who performed many miracles. (Mark 6:3, John 2:1, 11:47)

Compare the passages below:

And many people came to him. They said, "Though John never performed a miraculous sign, all that John said about this man was true." (John 10:41)

I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Matthew 11:11)

 

Secondly, the disciples misunderstood Jesus on many occasions (Matthew 16:11, Mark 8:17, 21) because Jesus used parables so no one could understand him! (Matthew 13:34, Luke 8:10, John 16:25) According to scholar Hyam Maccoby, the disciples are portrayed as “stupid”.

We should remember that the New Testament, as we have it, is much more dominated by Paul than appears at first sight. As we read it, we come across the Four Gospels, of which Jesus is the hero, and do not encounter Paul as a character until we embark on the post-Jesus narrative of Acts. Then we finally come into contact with Paul himself, in his letters. But this impression is misleading, for the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110. This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and coloured their interpretations of Jesus' activities. Paul is, in a sense, present from the very first word of the New Testament. This is, of course, not the whole story, for the Gospels are based on traditions and even written sources which go back to a time before the impact of Paul, and these early traditions and sources are not entirely obliterated in the final version and give valuable indications of what the story was like before Paulinist editors pulled it into final shape. However, the dominant outlook and shaping perspective of the Gospels is that of Paul, for the simple reason that it was the Paulinist view of what Jesus' sojourn on Earth had been about that was triumphant in the Church as it developed in history. Rival interpretations, which at one time had been orthodox, opposed to Paul's very individual views, now became heretical and were crowded out of the final version of the writings adopted by the Pauline Church as the inspired canon of the New Testament. This explains the puzzling and ambiguous role given in the Gospels to the companions of Jesus, the twelve disciples. They are shadowy figures, who are allowed little personality, except of a schematic kind. They are also portrayed as stupid; they never quite understand what Jesus is up to. Their importance in the origins of Christianity is played down in a remarkable way (The MythMaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity)

 

Shamoun claims that Jesus is the ‘Son of God’, but Jesus rejected the ‘Son of God’ attribute:

Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ (Luke 4:41)

The convert to Islam Abdul Malik comments on Luke 4:41

Jesus refused to be called the Son of God by demons. Do you think that Jesus would rebuke the demons, or anyone else for that matter, for telling the truth? Unquestionably, no! Jesus rebuked the demons because they were saying something false by calling him the Son of God. Also, if the demons knew that Jesus was the Christ, for Jesus to shut them up because they called him the Christ is a contradiction to Jesus’ mission. (The Bible Led me to Islam)

 

The ‘Son of God’ was applied to many heroes of the past, and many characters of the Bible were called the ‘Son of God’ (Exodus 4:22, Psalms 2:7, Luke 3:38). The Roman emperors were considered the ‘Suns of God’, or personages of the sun.

 

The author T.W. Doane mentions in Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions that ‘Son of God’ was applied to various gods before Jesus:

 

 

Bacchus, the Son of God, was of royal descent. (p. 164)

 

Quetzalcoatl, the Son of God, who was put to death by Eopuco. They said that he was placed oil a beam of wood, with his arras stretched out, and that he died there.' (p. 200)

 

When Julius Caesar, who was the son of a god, ... there was a darkness over the earth, the sun being eclipsed for as space of six hours. (p. 207)

 

Łaoulapiua, the Son of God, the Saviour, after being put to death, rose from the dead. His history is portrayed in the following lines of Ovid’s… (p. 217)

 

 

The author Kersey Graves mentions in The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors that ‘Son of God’ was very common:

 

The various deific titles applied to Jesus Christ in the New Testament are regarded by some Christian writers as presumptive evidence of his divinity. But the argument proves too much for the case; as we find the proof in history that many other beings, whom Christians regard as men, were honored and addressed by the same titles, such as God, Lord, Savior, Redeemer, Mediator, Messiah, etc.

The Hindoo Chrishna, more than two thousand years ago, was prayerfully worshiped as "God the Most High." His disciple Amarca once addressed him thus: "Thou art the Lord of all things, the God of the universe, the emblem of mercy, the bestower of salvation. Be propitious O most High God," etc. Here he is addressed both as Lord and God. He is also styled "God of Gods."

Adonis of Greece was addressed as "God Supreme," and Osiris of Egypt as "the Lord of Life." In Phrygia, it was "Lord Atys," as Christians say, "Lord Jesus Christ." Narayan of Bermuda was styled the " Holy Living God."

The title "Son of God" was so common in nearly all religious countries as to excite but little awe or attention.

St. Basil says, "Every uncommonly good man was called ,the Son of God.'" The "Asiatic Research" says, "The Tamulese adored a divine Son of God," and Thor of the Scandinavians was denominated "the first-born Son of God;" and so was Chrishna of India, and other demigods.

It requires, therefore, a wide stretch of faith to believe that Jesus Christ was in any peculiar sense "the Son of God," because so denominated, or "the only begotten Son of God," when so many others are reported in history bearing that title. (http://www../library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap9.html)

 

Jesus was actually the ‘Sun of God’:

“The divine teacher is called, is tested by the “adversary”, gathers disciples, heals the sick, preaches the Good News about God’s kingdom, finally runs afoul of his bitter enemies, suffers, dies, and is resurrected after three days. This is the total pattern of the sun god in all the ancient dramas”. (The Pagan Christ, p. 145)

“…Thus we see that the Christians took the paintings and statues of the Sun-gods Serapis and Apollo as models, when they wished to represent their Saviour. (ibid, Bible Myths, p. 502)

This concludes our first part. Continue with Part 2

 

 

 

 

 

Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.

Back to Contradictions and Errors in the Bible.

Articles by Abdullah Smith.


Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.

 

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube