What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube |
The Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") believe the Prophets were sinless and pure, it doesn’t mean they were divine. The Holy Quran validates the Prophets of God by denying the falsehood of the Bible. The Old Testament degrades the Prophets of God and vilifies them. We don’t believe the Biblical stories of moral depravity; the Holy Prophets never caused any evil. But unfortunately, the New Testament has distorted the pure image of Jesus. Christians boast that Jesus was sinless and pure, yet the Bible teaches the exact opposite. Jesus was adopted into a cursed lineage; he was baptized to remove the sins. Christians believe the exact opposite of the New Testament.
itself was the first awkward fact.
Ordinarily, John's baptism stood
as a sign that one had repented of sin: "A baptism in token of repentance, for the forgiveness of sins"
(Mark 1:4). It appears not to have
troubled Mark that he presented Jesus as a repentant sinner: people
"flocked" to John, "and were baptized by him in the River
Jordan, confessing their sins…It happened at this time that Jesus came from
Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John" (Mark 1:5, 9). We have three choices in interpreting this: Either
Mark did not realize what he was saying (the least likely), or he had not
developed or he had not developed a
theology of Jesus' sinlessness. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 30)
All things considered, then, Mark does not begin his story of Jesus very satisfactorily. Indeed, within two or three decades of Mark's completion, there were at least two, and perhaps three, different writers (or Christian groups) who felt the need to produce an expanded and corrected version. Viewed from their perspective, the Gospel of Mark has some major shortcomings: It contains no birth narrative; it implies that Jesus, a repentant sinner, became the Son of God only at his baptism; it recounts no resurrection appearances; and it ends with the very unsatisfactory notion that the women who found the Empty Tomb were too afraid to speak to anyone about it. (ibid, p. 34)
Let us quote the passage:
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4)
Then Jesus came from Galilee to
Jesus acknowledged that he descended from a cursed lineage,
and therefore needed to be baptized. That is the only explanation to solve the
problem. John believed that Jesus was sinless, but he volunteered to be
God cursed King Jeconiah and his descendants forever.
"As surely as I live,"
declares the LORD, "even if you, Jehoiachin son
of Jehoiakim king of
This is what the LORD says:
"Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his
lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule any more in
The Gospel of Matthew adopts Jesus into the cursed lineage:
And after the deportation to
was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel
the father of Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel
the father of Abiud, and Abiud
the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim
the father of Azor, and Azor
the father of Zadok, and Zadok
the father of Achim, and Achim
the father of Eliud, and Eliud
the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar
the father of Matthan, and Matthan
the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of
whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:13-16)
According to Psalms 132, the Messiah would sit on David’s
The LORD swore an oath to David, a sure oath that he will not revoke: "One of your own descendants I will place on your throne- if your sons keep my covenant and the statutes I teach them, then their sons will sit on your throne for ever and ever." (Psalms 132:11-12)
But since Jesus descended from the cursed Jeconiah, he never sat on David’s throne. If only Jesus had descended from a separate line, he could’ve sat on the throne.
Jesus never reigned over the house of Jacob or sat on David’s throne (Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 298)
On the contrary, the Pontius Pilate is sitting on the throne judging Jesus!
Matthew and Luke are over-zealous in making DAVID the King, the prime ancestor of Jesus, because of that false notion that Jesus was to sit on the "THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID" (Acts 2:30). The Gospels belie this prophecy, for they tell us that instead of Jesus sitting on his father's (David's) throne, it was Pontious Pilate, a Roman Governor, a pagan who sat on that very throne and condemned its rightful (?) heir (Jesus) to death. "Never mind,'' says the evangelist, "if not in his first coming, then in his second coming he will fulfill this prophecy" (Ahmed Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word? p. 38)
The Jews believed the Messiah would descend from David, and destroy the Romans. Yet Jesus failed to destroy the Romans, he was baptized to remove his past sins. He descended from Jeconiah, so he couldn’t even sit on David’s throne. Jesus’ purpose was not crucifixion (Ps. 20:6, Mark 1:34), but only to preach the Gospel and the Torah.
The Jews wanted to kill Jesus to prove he was a false Messiah; they expected the Messiah to be victorious, and liberate
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. (Hyam Maccoby, The Problem of Paul)
Secondly, if Jesus was crucified he couldn’t have been the
Messiah. The Psalms describe the Messiah to be victorious (Ps. 18:50, 20:6,
28:8, 84:9). The Prophet David was the Anointed (Christ), a politico-religious
leader, yet he was victorious over his enemies (2 Sam. 8:6, Ps. 144:10). The
Prophet David himself slaughtered thousands of his enemies (1 Sam 27:9), so how
can Jesus be any different? The Jews expected another Messiah like David to
descend from his lineage. The Gospels deny the Jewish Messiah by teaching the
crucifixion, the Bible says God would save the Messiah (Psalms. 20:6).
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
Christians argue that Jeconiah’s curse was only temporary, so why did Jesus baptize himself? It seems illogical that Jesus baptized himself for no reason, he was obviously guilty.
The makeup of the genealogy of any claimant to the throne of David requires careful scrutiny because any Davidic king of the Jewish people, the messiah included, must trace his lineage back to King David, the most prestigious family of the tribe of
John the Baptist confessed that it was not necessary for Jesus to be baptized (he thought he was sinless), yet Jesus offered himself to be baptized to remove the sins. Why did Jesus need to be baptized to “fulfill all righteousness”? This doesn’t preclude the fact that he was sinful, and needed to be baptized.
John the Baptist presented genuine problems.
Since the baptism made John look
like the mentor of Jesus and the initiator of his career, the Baptist had to be
demoted, but not too much; the initiator became the divinely predicted
forerunner. Mark's method of performing that demotion is fascinating because, para- doxically, it does in fact
the opposite, and had to be
corrected, three different ways, by the other three evangelists (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 30)
“…Another embarrassment in Mark’s inherited baptismal scene is John the Baptist himself. He clearly had a role in initiating Jesus’ career, but the relationship was obviously troubling to some Christian minds, especially as Mark presents it. The mythical role of descending-ascending heavenly figure fits John in Mark’s first chapter better than it fits Jesus! That is to say, Mark, or rather his Greek source, has presented John the Baptist as a kind of Elijah Redivivus or Elijah Reincarnate. Because of the last verses of the Old Testament, many in the first century expected that at the end time Elijah, who had gone up to Heaven in a chariot of fire and was believed to still be there (2 Kings 2:11) would return. (ibid, p. 33)
There were multiple accounts of Jesus’ baptism.
Indeed, Mark may even have had at
his disposal a variety of competing accounts of this episode. We know that this
was so in other instances, as in his accounts of the feeding of the five
thousand in chapter 6 and of the four thousand in chapter 8, two different
versions of the same legend that Mark accepted as altogether different stories.
(ibid, p. 29)
The ritual of baptism was borrowed from the Mystery Religions:
Christianised rituals were among the cultural features of the Mediterranean world that were adapted by the Early Christians, as part of the thorough-going Christianization of culture, which included the landscape (see Christianised sites) and the calendar (see Christianised calendar). The obvious connection to Jewish rituals of Christian practices such as the Eucharist and Baptism, is often argued to be by design. Christian tradition places these Christian use of these activities as having originated in the life of Jesus, as attested by the Biblical narratives (e.g. the Baptism of Jesus for Baptism, and Last Supper for the Eucharist), and the Biblical incidents are said to be examples of Jewish ritual (e.g. Baptism as ritual cleansing, and the Last Supper as a passover seder). However, these practices are also present in several non-Christian, non-Jewish, ancient religions, a fact that made several church fathers uncomfortable. So similar were the practices of major rivals, such as Mithraism, and so obviously did they occur before the existence of Christianity, and unconnected to Judaism, that church fathers such as Tertullian and Justin Martyr argued that Satan himself had given the rituals to the rival religions, as a sort-of prophetic mockery. According to several secular scholars, the fact that even early Christian church fathers admitted that the other religions used these rituals, and that they admitted the other religions used them first, suggests that Christianity adopted them from these sources, and the biblical narrative was invented later to justify Christian usage. 
Let us consider the following options:
(1). Jesus was sinless prior to his baptism; he was baptized to remove the curse (Jeremiah 22:24)
(2). Jesus did not descend from Jeconiah, yet baptized himself to remove his sins.
(3). Jesus was born of a virgin but he later sinned and needed to be baptized. (Matt. 3:13)
We don’t believe the falsehood about Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus was sinless and pure, the Bible says the opposite. The Holy Quran says Jesus was born of a virgin, so the genealogies are meaningless.
Acknowledged today by a thousand million Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") that Jesus Christ (pbuh) was born miraculously — without any male intervention; the followers of Christ created two separate genealogies for a man who had no genealogy. Between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke they give this mighty Messenger of God sixty-six fathers and grandfathers. (Ahmed Deedat, Muhammad: The Natural Successor to Christ, p. 36)
Jesus needed to be baptized because he was a child of
incest! Below are excerpts of Disturbing
Stories in the Bible by A Muslim.
1 And it came to pass at that time, that
12 And in process of time the daughter of Shuah
24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told
Well I think the verses are pretty self-explanatory aren’t they? I can assure you that Christian missionaries don’t go preaching this chapter around, I can also assure you that Christian Bible study groups don’t teach this in their seminars neither. As I said most Christians do not even know about this event. You tell them about it and they will call you a liar.
So as you noticed,
Let us now go read Matthew and see the lineage of Jesus’ family, it seems to get from bad to worst. Here is the lineage:
1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into
So note Jesus’ family lineage comes from that sick night of incest! What makes things worse is that Christians believe Jesus is God, so then this means God’s family line is a result of incest! This is what Christians call the good news. I wonder how a Christian will explain this? Let me make it easy for them, there is no explanation, how the heck are you going to try and explain the fact that your God’s family lineage is from incest! Well this is enough to cast doubt on the entire authenticity of the Bible.
The scholar Ahmed Deedat says:
Watch now how the Christian fathers have foisted the incestuous progenies of the Old Testament upon their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament. For a man who had no genealogy, they have manufactured one for him. And what a genealogy! Six adulterers and offsprings of incest are imposed upon this holy man of God. Men and women deserving to be stoned to death according to God's own law, as revealed through Moses, and further to be ostracised and debarred from the House of God for generations. (Is the Bible God’s Word? p. 48)
The Apocryphal Gospels on Jesus:
What do the apocryphal gospels say about Jesus? The early Church destroyed the pagan documents that could be used against them, but they were not successful. A great number of apocryphal books have survived, and preserved online.
The Gospel of Philip records the following passage:
"...the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended... They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us? the Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you as I love her?". 
The Secret Gospel of Mark says:
And they come into
A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. (Mark 14:51-52)
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
The son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Jesus. Taking a branch from a willow tree, he dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered. (2) When Jesus saw what had happened, he became angry and said to him, "You godless, brainless moron, what did the ponds and waters do to you? Watch this now: you are going to dry up like a tree and you will never produce leaves or roots or fruit."
And immediately, this child withered up completely. Then, Jesus departed and returned to Joseph's house. (4) The parents of the one who had been withered up, however, wailed for their young child as they took his remains away. Then, they went to Joseph and accused him, "You are responsible for the child who did this." 
The Book of Revelation:
And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. (2:23)
Was Jesus a Sinful Sacrifice?
Here is what the Bible says regarding ransom:
Christians believe the exact opposite of this verse.
This doesn’t make sense. IF the wicked is a ransom for the righteous, Jesus was a (wicked) ransom for the righteous!
Was Jesus God in the Old Testament?
It doesn’t make sense that Jesus was God, and then the blood of thousands of people would be upon his hands!
And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter. (1 Samuel 6:19)
And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. (Ezekiel 9:4-6)
This passage contradicts what Jesus said:
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' " (Matthew 19:19)
Jesus is recorded to have said:
Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." (Matthew 15:17-20)
Jesus rejected adultery, sexual immorality, theft, and false witness, but according to the New Testament, Jesus approved the killing of enemies (Luke 19:27) and committed murder (Revelations 2:22), he also used offensive language (Matt. 15:7, 22:18, 23:17, Lk. 11:40), clearly denying his own teaching. The Bible portrays Jesus as defiled, because he is forced to contradict his own teachings, and misquote the Old Testament.
In spite of many leadership shortcomings (e.g., being rejected by his own people), the portrayal of Jesus in the so-called New Testament is not the “love-all” and “forgive-all” kind of personality that the Church would have us believe. He appears rude (John 2:4, Matt. 12:48, Mark 3:33-4), mean-spirited (Matt. 15:26, 17:17, 23:33-5), offensive (John 8:44, Matt. 23:13-29), abusive (Matt. 12:39, 23:23-9, Luke 11:44), disrespectful (Matt. 11:21-3, 16:4, 23:13-9), divisive (Matt. 10:35, Luke 14:26), racist (Matt. 15:26) and prone to violence (Matt. 10:34; Mark 11:15; Luke 12:49-53, 19:27, 22:36). He is even tempted by the devil (Mark 1:13, Luke 4:2). He commands stealing (Matt. 21:1-3, Luke 19:29-34), and may even be a homosexual (Mark 14:49-52, John 13:23). [Na ‘oozu billah!] (Dr. Habib Siddiqui, Islam and Coexistence: What I Didn't Say and Missionary Myopia, 
The Gospel of John is the only book which records Jesus saying: “Who can convict me of sin?” (8:46). We don’t find these words in the previous Gospels. The evolution of the Gospel of John is undeniable:
The most difficult of all the Gospels to date accurately is the fourth Gospel, known as John. It is a book that appears to have been written over a number of years, perhaps even in layers… In other ways it reflects a long-developing tradition. Many of its theological discourses reveal a level of sophistication that could only have taken place in a time well past that of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. (John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? p. 87)
Scholars have concluded that this gospel was originally written in a simple form. But this gospel was later on, as the New Jerusalem Bible says, “amplified and developed in several stages during the second half of the first century.” (The New Jerusalem Bibles: Introduction to John, p. 1742)
“It would seem that we have only the end-stage of a slow process that has brought together not only component parts of different ages, but also corrections, additions and sometimes even more than one revision of the same discourse.” (The New Jerusalem Bible, p. 1739)
“The speeches in the Fourth Gospel (even apart from the
early messianic claim) are so different from those in the Synoptics and so like the comments of the Fourth
Evangelist himself, that both cannot be equally reliable as records of what
Jesus said. Literary veracity in ancient times did not forbid, as it does now
the assignment of fictitious speeches to historical
characters.” [Life of Jesus, C. J. Cadoux, Mackennal
Professor of Church History at
The Christian scholars agree that John is unreliable.
John's Gospel is radically different from the three others; to such an extent indeed that Father Roguet in his book Initiation to the Gospel (Initiation l'Evangile), having commented on the other three, immediately evokes a startling image for the fourth. He calls it ‘a different world'. It is indeed a unique book; different in the arrangement and choice of subject, description and speech; different in its style, geography, chronology; there are even differences in theological outlook (O. Culmann). Jesus's words are therefore differently recorded by John from the other evangelists: Father Roguet notes on this that whereas the synoptics record Jesus's words in a style that is "striking, much nearer to the oral style", in John all is meditation; to such an extent indeed that "one sometimes wonders if Jesus is still speaking or whether His ideas have not imperceptibly been extended by the Evangelist's own thoughts".
In contrast to this, there are stories which are unique to John and not present in the other three. The Ecumenical Translation mentions these (page 283). Here again, one could infer that the three authors did not see the importance in these episodes that John saw in them. It is difficult however not to be taken aback when one finds in John a description of the appearance of Jesus raised from the dead to his disciples beside the Sea of Tiberias (John 21,1-14). The description is nothing less than the reproduction (with numerous added details) of the miracle catch of fish which Luke (5,1-11) presents as an episode that occurred during Jesus's life. In his description Luke alludes to the presence of the Apostle John who, as tradition has it, was the evangelist, Since this description in John's Gospel forms part of chapter 21, agreed to be a later addition, one can easily imagine that the reference to John's name in Luke could have led to its artificial inclusion in the fourth Gospel. (Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, The Quran and Science, p. 63)
All praises are due to Allah!
What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube