Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

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

Responding to Matt Slickís Response to a Muslim inquiry






Matt Slick has released an email of a Muslim with a series of questions, Matt then goes on to supposedly respond to these questions posed by the Muslim, the article can be found here:  




I will basically be replying to Matt Slickís responses to the Muslim. The Muslim brotherís comment is in brown, while Matt Slickís response is in green, my response will be in black.  


Muslim:  In the Name of Allah, Most Beneficent, Most Merciful.  To my fellow People of the Book and fellow siblings of Adam, I would like to draw your attention to the following facts in the hope that you may see the truth. For your own sake, read with the intent of finding the truth and not with the intent of winning an argument. If after this, you don't believe, then I have tried. Either way, it is between you and ALLAH, the one God.

     CARM:  we are saddened to see the continued deception held by Muslims.  They do not follow the true God and they fail to understand who Christ really is.  Muslims believe that the Bible has been corrupted (it hasn't), so that they can make room for the justification to deny what it really says.  Instead of leaving the eyewitnesses, they believe the Mohammed said about Jesus 600 years later.  So, essentially they are believing what their so called Prophet said instead of those who actually walk and talk with Christ.  Add to that a lack of understanding of biblical theology and you get the following questions.




It is interesting to note Matt Slickís rude typical Christian behaviour. Note how he starts accusing the Muslim of using deception and generalizes all Muslims of using deception; tell us Matt, what deception did this Muslim commit here? If a Muslim sincerely believes in something and is wrong does that make him a deceiver? The same thing with a Christian, if he sincerely believes in something and is wrong would that make the Christian a deceiver or just sincerely and innocently wrong?


I am glad Matt Slick shows his rude behaviour, since it shows he is a hypocrite since on his first article to Muslims he writes:


However, please realize that I have no hatred for Islam, Muhammad, Muslims, or the Koran




I do not seek to attack and call Muslims names or use emotional and poorly reasoned arguments as "proofs" for my position (http://www../islam/notetomuslims.htm)


So much for Matt Slick not hating Muslims, and so much for him not calling Muslimís names, in his first sentence to this kind Muslim Matt calls the Muslim a liar! I guess thatís the Christian love?


Matt Slick then goes on a rant saying Muslims do not know who Jesus is, but rather we follow the word of a man who came 600 years later, disregarding what the people who lived and walked with Jesus said.


How interesting, since none of the people whom Jesus walked and lived with called him God, nor did Jesus ever himself say he is God. Isnít that interesting Matt? It seems that it is Matt Slick who does not know who Jesus Christ is, Matt Slick believes in an invented Jesus who does not even exist in his own Bible! If Matt wants to prove me wrong then I challenge Slick to show me Jesus claiming to be God, and showing me a disciple that believed Jesus is God.  


Matt then tries to say the Bible is not corrupt when it is, how funny it is that even Christian scholars admit the Bible is corrupt, and so does Matt Slickís own Bible in Jeremiah 8:8! It seems Matt Slick should have done his homework before writing such nonsense.


     Muslim: If Jesus was GOD, then why in Mark 12:29 did Jesus say, "Here, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." The words "our God" indicate that Jesus had a higher God over him, a stronger God than him. Jesus didn't say "Your God". He said "our God" which includes Jesus as the creation of GOD.

     CARM:  Basic Christian theology teaches that Jesus was both God and man.  He had two natures.  He was divine and human at the same time.  This teaching is known as the hypostatic union; that is, the coming-together of two natures in one person.  In Heb. 2:9 that Jesus was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ."  Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ."  Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."  Jesus was both God and man at the same time.
     Therefore, since he was a man (though not only a man) and since he was made under the law, and lower than the angels, it is natural to conclude that he would have someone that he would call God. In this case, is God the Father.
     But we must make a clarification. To say that Jesus Christ is God is not as clear a statement as it needs to be. Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity; that is, God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say that Jesus Christ is God is almost like saying that he is the Trinity, and that would make no sense. When the Christian say that Jesus is God, he really means that Jesus is divine in nature. Since God is three persons, and since Jesus is the second person in the Trinity, he shares the same divinity with the Father and Holy Spirit.
     Having explained this, when Jesus says "Our God" it must be understood that Jesus is speaking as a man. But it does not mean he does not possess the divine nature as well.
     For further reading please see
the two natures of Jesus.



What a bunch of nonsensical RUBBISH. This is the classic textbook example of Christian running in circles without bringing any proof. Note Matt Slick claims that Jesus is both man and God, having 2 natures, and all that rubbish. What makes this so amazing is that Matt Slick could not quote a single text from Jesus showing this teaching! In other words such a teaching was never uttered from Jesusí lips! Who does Matt go to to prove his point? He goes to Paul! Paul was not even a witness to Jesus nor a disciple, yet Matt Slick gets all his proof from Paul and not Jesus, why is that?


Why did Jesus NEVER ONCE say I am man and God, I am man and divine, or I have two natures? Isnít that strange? I challenge Matt Slick to provide one single verse from the lips of Jesus showing him saying he has 2 natures, man and divine, he will NEVER find it, this is an invention that was made up AFTER Jesus, Jesus never uttered such garbage and Matt knows this. So therefore Matt Slickís answer fails since he argues from silence, he brings no evidence, so therefore the Muslimís point remains and the Muslimís question proves Jesus is not God. As he correctly pointed out, Jesus said OUR God, not YOUR God indicating that Jesus himself has a God, and if Jesus has a God than he cannot be a God.


Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 20:17 did Jesus say, "I ascend to my God and your God? This tells us that we and Jesus have a common GOD.

     CARM:  The same explanation above applies here.


How pitiful this is how weak Matt Slickís reply is, and basically is how weak the Christianís reply is. You ask them for proof, and what do they do? They say ummmm Paul said! Why canít they show us what Jesus said? Very strange indeed, isnít it strange that none of what Christians preach was preached by Jesus? Very strange indeed I must say.


The Muslim question once again proves Jesus is not God, since if Jesus was God then he himself would not have a God, the fact he has a God proves he is NOT God.


Again I challenge Matt to bring one single text from Jesus saying I am man and God, I am man and divine, or I have two natures.


Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 8:28 did Jesus say, "I do nothing of myself"? Can't GOD do anything he wills?

      CARM:  Jesus was fulfilling his ministry completely as a man.  He was made under the law (Gal. 4:4) and operated under the law.  He fulfilled his ministry having emptied himself (Phil. 2:5-8) and was completely subject to the Father (Luke 22:42).  Therefore, since he was under obligation to fulfill the law (which included complete dependence upon the Father), and since he had emptied himself and was working in cooperation with human limitations, he would naturally do nothing of himself.  Jesus did not come to do his own will, but the will of the Father.  "Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done,Ē (Luke 22:42).  ďI can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me," (John 5:30).



Once again Matt Slickís argues garbage, he persists in saying Jesus is man and God, so as man Jesus did this and that, yet Matt Slick never quotes Jesus to prove this point! I mean common how more stupid can this get?! Matt has now three times (trinity times) said that Jesus is man and God, divine and human, having 2 natures, yet in these trinity times Matt has not once brought a verse from Jesus saying this! So Matt is making things up and ascribing false words to Jesus, words Jesus never said, hence Matt Slick is lying on a prophet of God, which is a grave sin and Matt must repent and ask God for forgiveness at once.  


Matt Slick then says that Jesus did not come to do his own will but the will of the Father, I say AMEN to that! That is what the Muslim also says, every prophet came to do the will of Allah, not the will of their own self, that my friend is what you call a MUSLIM, the one who submits his will to Allah, and that my friend is what you call ISLAM, which is surrendering your will to God. So thank you Matt, Matt has just proved that what Muslims say on Jesus is correct, therefore contradicting himself when he said that Muslims do not understand whom Christ is.


Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 14:28 did Jesus say, "My Father (GOD) is greater than I"?

      CARM"You heard that I said to you, ĎI go away, and I will come to you.í If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I,'" (John 14:28).
     Jesus said the Father was greater than He not because Jesus is not God, but because Jesus was also a man and as a man he was in a lower position.   He was> ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." (
Heb. 2:9).  Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ."  
     Jesus has two natures.  Jesus was not denying that He was God.  He was merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man.  Jesus is both God and man.  As a man, he was in a lesser position than the Father.  He had added to Himself human nature (
Col. 2:9).  He became a man to die for people.  
     A comparison can be found in the marriage relationship.  Biblically, a husband is greater in position and authority than his wife.  But, he is no different in nature and he is not better than she.  They share the same nature, being human, and they work together by love.
     So, Jesus was not denying that He was God.  He was simply acknowledging that He was also a man and as a man, he was subject to the laws of God so that He might redeem those who were under the law; namely, sinners (
Gal. 4:4-5).



I must say this is getting sad and funny now. Note Matt uses the same argument for the 4th time in a row, yet provides no references from Jesus! Matt yet again says Jesus is man so therefore he did this and that, the same old story, yet does Matt quote Jesus? No!


Matt Slick is really doing a bad job in answering the Muslimís inquiry; I hope this is not all Christians can do in response to serious Muslim questions, because quite frankly this is pathetic to say the least.


It now seems to be making sense, it seems that Paul and the Church invented this 2-nature doctrine on Jesus to get rid of all these problems in the first 4 Gospels, which show Jesus is not God. So to get rid of problems such as Jesus praying, dying, and saying he has a God, and saying the Father is greater than he, the Church and Paul made up this 2-nature doctrine to simply rid them of all these problems. How convenient wouldnít you say? Every time you bring proof that Jesus is not God they will shout back saying TWO NATURES!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why in Luke 23:46 did Jesus say, "Father (GOD), into thy hands I commend my spirit"?

      CARM:   Because Jesus has two natures, divine and human, as a man he would have someone he would call his God. This does not make two gods since the doctrine of the Trinity states that there is only one God in three persons and that the second person of the Trinity became man. Therefore, Jesus committed himself to God the Father.



This becoming extremely sad and boring now, it is like Matt Slick is on a repetitive streak, he keeps repeating himself over and over, that God has two natures yet not once has he now managed to quote Jesus to prove this! Isnít that amazing?!


This is the 5th time in a row that Matt has said that Jesus has 2 natures, man and divine, yet for the 5th time in a row he has not brought one reference from Jesus saying this, absolutely amazing.


So far the Muslim has proven that Jesus is not and cannot be God with his good points, well done to this Muslim brother for silencing Matt Slick.


Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why in Matthew 19:16 did Jesus say, "Why call me good, there is none good but One, that is GOD"?

      CARM:  The simple question to ask here is, "was Jesus good?"  If the Muslim wants to say that Jesus is not good, then he's saying that Jesus was evil.  If, however, the Muslim wants to admit that Jesus was good, then the natural conclusion is that Jesus is God.



How sad that Matt is using a deceptive argument here, he is trying to corner the Muslim into a position which only makes Matt look very stupid and sad.


Notice Matt says if a Muslim says that Jesus is not good that makes Jesus evil, so the Muslim must say that Jesus is good, meaning Jesus is God.


Hmmm for starters, calling someone good makes them God?! Wow! I have never heard such a statement before, so according to Matt Slick if you call someone good that makes them God, how interesting.


But let us stop Mattís excitement, see folks Matt Slick is trying to trick his readers, the verse in question here is Matthew 19:16. Basically one man comes up to Jesus calling Jesus good, Jesus says why do you call me good? Only God is good. Now what this means is that Jesus is not good, no, it means that Jesus is not good in the sense that God is good, meaning Jesus is not perfect like God is. This is what Jesus was trying to show, that only God is good, good in the sense that he is perfect, and that Jesus is not like that. That does not mean Jesus is bad, Jesus is a good man indeed, but not good in the same sense that God is good meaning perfect. Mattís attempt of distortion FAILS.


Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why in Matthew 26:39 did Jesus beg his GOD to have mercy on him and to pass the cup to death (kill Jesus in another words) before Jesus goes through the pain of crucifixion? Also see: Jesus's crucifixion in Islam.

     CARM:  Jesus did not ask to be killed. As a man, he did not want to go through the torturous ordeal of the crucifixion. What man would desire such a horrible death? The fact that Jesus did not want to go through it is proof enough that he was human. But it does not mean that he was not divine.




Two responses, first one is that Matt goes back to his lame argument that Jesus is man and divine, he has not proven that yet.


However Matt then says what man would want to go through such a painful death, hmmmmmm many many servants of God have gone through brutal treatment for God, are you telling me Jesus the messiah and prophet of God was not willing to go through pain and death for God? Matt Slick makes no sense! He is essentially calling Jesus a coward, and making it seem that Jesus has a lack faith in God, because why would anyone be afraid of death and pain if they knew that right after it they would be in heaven, let alone a prophet and messiah who spoke with God!


Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 18:38 didn't he reply when he was asked about the truth.

      CARMJohn 18:38 says, "Pilate said to Him, ďWhat is truth?Ē  Jesus did not respond because of the Old Testament prophecy that said he was silent before his accusers.  "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth," (Isaiah 53:7).



False, that is false and incorrect. Jesus did respond to his accusers:


John 18: 13-40


13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.  14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.  15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.  16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.  17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.  18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.  19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.  20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.  21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.  22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?  23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?  24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.  25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?  27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

  28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?  30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.  31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:  32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.  33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?  34 Jesus answered him,
Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?  35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?  36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.  37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.  38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.  39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?  40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. 




So much for Jesus not defending himself against his accusers, note how in the beginning Jesus does try to defend himself, telling the evil Jews what have I done? And why do you beat me? He also tells them that he has been preaching here openly and that why are they asking him things about his doctrine if he was teaching it openly. That to me sounds like someone defending himself.


The man is basically saying in plane words why are you hitting me? What have I done wrong? You saw me preaching here before, what is wrong now? That isnít someone defending themselves? That sure doesnít sound like someone staying quit in front of his accusers as the Ďprophecyí says.


Jesus also responds to Pilate, telling him that his kingdom is not of this world but the here-after, which is what any good Muslim would, and Jesus basically goes on to say that he came to bear witness to the truth, just like a Muslim should, bear witness that there is no God but Allah, bearing witness to the truth. Does this sound like a quiet man refusing to defend or talk for himself? Hmmm the man has first told the Jews what evil he has done and why the hit him, and he has now told Pilate his mission and what he doing! Does this sound like someone who did not open his mouth? You decide.


The Muslim then asks Matt slick about Jesusí limited knowledge, Matt basically posts a former article of his, which I have refuted, go to this link for the response:




Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why in Isaiah 11:2-3 did GOD put the spirit of fearing GOD in Jesus?

      CARMIsaiah 11:2-3 says, "And the Spirit of the Lord will rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. 3 And He will delight in the fear of the Lord, and He will not judge by what His eyes see, nor make a decision by what His ears hear."  It is good that this Muslim recognizes a prophecy concerning Christ and it adds to the validity and inspiration of the Bible.
     This verse cannot be used as an objection to Christ's deity. As we have stated repeatedly above, Jesus was both divine and human and as a man he was under the law and behaved and acted as a man. This would mean that he would have the fear the Lord just as any godly Jew would. Furthermore, the word fear does not mean simply to be afraid. The context means awe, respect, etc.
     The miracle of the incarnation is that the Word added human nature to himself in order to become one of us so that he might fulfill the law and take our place of punishment. In order for this to be done, the Word became flesh, became a man. This is why the Bible says that the word which was with God and was God, became flesh and both among us (
John 1:1,14). As a man, Jesus would naturally and properly have fear the Lord.




I must say this Muslim has literally crippled Matt Slick, notice the terrible response that Matt gives, yet again itís the same response as the rest, Jesus is man and divine, and he does not prove this. However so this verse proves that the prophecy is referring to a man, not God, go ask the Jew as well since they sure know more about this prophecy than a Christian does.


Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 5:31 did Jesus tell his followers that if he (Jesus) bears witness of himself, then his record is not true?

      CARMJohn 5:31 says, "If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true." Jesus was speaking in accordance with Old Testament law that said Paul referred to in 2 Cor. 13:1, "This is the third time I am coming to you. Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses." 
The Jews knew that truth was established by more than one witness. If Jesus was alone in his witness concerning himself, then how could his testimony be true? This is why the Old Testament law prohibited condemning someone to death on the testimony of a single witness. The idea was that for a fact to be established, you need more than one person testifying to a truth.  Of course, in this context of Christ, we know that Jesus does have another witness because the Father bore witness of Jesus and commanded that we hear Jesus.  "and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, ďThis is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased," (
Matt. 3:17).




Who cares what the Jews believed in, the fact is Jesus is God, isnít he? So therefore his witness is good enough, the fact that Jesus says his witness alone is not good enough proves he is a man like us all and is no God.


So now Christians mock God more, saying God needs a witness to himself! And that Godís testimony alone is not good enough! It just keeps getting worst and worst. Basically God needs back up according to Matt Slick, what more can I say to that?


Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 5:30 did Jesus tell his followers that he can't do a single thing of his own initiative?

      CARM:  As stated above, Jesus was a man, under the law, cooperating with the limitations of being a man, and who had come not to do his own will, but the will of the Father. Therefore he could do nothing of his own initiative because he was sent from the Father to do the will of the Father.



You stated nothing above, just useless nonsense with no back up, I could sit here all day long and make claims, but if I donít actually provide proof for it then it means nothing, and that is what Matt has done. He has repeated himself over and over again on this man nature Jesus doctrine, yet not once has he quoted Jesus mentioning this, isnít that amazing?


However so, the fact that Jesus could not do anything of his own is because he is a mere man like us all, and needs Godís will and permission to do anything.


As I said this 2-nature doctrine issue is a simple convenient way out for Christians to get rid of these major problems that refute Jesusí supposed divinity.


Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 5:36 did Jesus say that GOD had assigned him (Jesus) work and GOD is a witness on Jesus?

<P&NBSP;&NBSP;&NBSP;&NBSP; size="2" face="Verdana" color="#008000"  CARM:   John 5:36 says, ďBut the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me."
     Again, this does not mean that Jesus does not have a divine nature. It means that Jesus was under the law and had been sent by the Father as a man to accomplish the purpose of the Father. This does not mean Jesus is not God.




It is like Matt does not even read what he writes, he says that Jesus is a man sent by God to accomplish the will of God, yet this doesnít mean that Jesus is God! So what does that make Jesus?! Typically a man sent by God to carry out Godís will is called a PROPHET, not a god, so therefore I would like to thank Matt for this statement since he proves Jesus is not God.


Also it is interesting that what Matt said is what Muslims believe, Jesus a man was sent by God to accomplish his will, we Muslims believe that, so again Matt was wrong in saying Muslims are confused on Christ since as you can see Muslims are not confused at all on Christ. Rather it seems Matt is confused, he makes claims on Jesus with no backup.


Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 5:36 did Jesus say that GOD had assigned him (Jesus) work and GOD is a witness on Jesus?

<P&NBSP;&NBSP;&NBSP;&NBSP; size="2" face="Verdana" color="#008000"  CARM:   John 5:36 says, ďBut the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me."
     Again, this does not mean that Jesus does not have a divine nature. It means that Jesus was under the law and had been sent by the Father as a man to accomplish the purpose of the Father. This does not mean Jesus is not God.




There is a slight problem to this, since people did hear the Fatherís voice:


Mat 3:17 And 2532 lo 2400 a voice 5456 from 1537 heaven 3772, saying 3004 , This 3778 is 2076 my 3450 beloved 27 Son 5207, in 1722 whom 3739 I am well pleased 2106 ...


This is Matthew 3:17, this occurs during the baptism of Jesus, as you can see, the Father supposedly calls Jesus his beloved son in whom he is pleased, the people obviously heard this since it is not Jesus who narrated this event.



Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why did he pray to his GOD in Luke 5:16?

CARM:  Luke 5:16 says, "But He Himself would often slip away to the wilderness and pray."
Again, the answer is simple. Jesus has two natures. He is divine and human. He was made under the law (
Gal. 4:4), lower than the angels (Heb. 2:9), after having emptied himself (Phil. 2:5-8) even though he was the Word of God, which was God, and was made flesh, (John 1:1,14). Therefore, as we have stated before, Jesus would properly pray to God the Father.




Again the simple is absolute garbage, again Matt makes a claim and again he provides no verses from Jesus showing this. Jesus prayed to God because he is a servant and prophet of God and as such he would pray to God.


Muslim:  If Jesus was GOD, then why in Matthew 26:39 did Jesus fall on his face and prayed to his GOD?

CARMM:  Same answer as above.




Basically no response. Jesus is not God, Matt Slick could not answer one question, it is time for Matt to leave Christianity and join the faith of Jesus Christ, and that faith would be Islam. Praise Allah! Ameen.






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

Rebuttals to .'s articles section.

Muslim's Rebuttals section.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.