Osama has taken aim at my answer to his gross errors regarding Luke 23:34. It is quite clear from Osama’s response that he was unable to address the issues, but chose instead to bring up irrelevant points and logical fallacies. It appears to be a common ploy for Osama to simply repeat the outdated charge that the Bible is corrupt and that its authors were unknown over and over again ad infinitum and ad nauseum. It has almost become a mantra of sorts that Osama often chants, assuming that this will somehow prove his arguments.

Here, in this article I will only focus on the main points to my arguments. I will omit the great bulk of Osama’s "response" since it didn’t address anything I had initially presented in my rebuttal. I will also link to articles which have already refuted Osama’s outdated arguments in order to avoid repeating myself for the umpteenth time.

Osama begins:

RESPONSE:

Osama does the very thing that I stated above, namely repeat the same tired argument over and over again. Our good friend Quennel Gale wrote a very thorough response to Osama’s gross lies and misrepresentations:

To be quite frank, Quennel’s article is more of annihilation than a simple response.

In answer to which parts of the Bible do Muslims believe in, it is clear that the first Muslims believed IN ALL OF IT. More on this below.

Third, Osama begs the question with his claim that he only accepts those parts that agree with Islam. How does he know that Islam is true? Because the Quran or Muhammad said so? It is rather interesting and sad that Osama doesn’t see the irrationality in his reasoning. For instance, Osama turns to the Holy Bible to prove that God commissioned his false prophet, and then uses Muhammad’s message to argue that the Holy Bible has been changed! This has Osama arguing in an illogical circle as the following illustration helps demonstrate:

This introduces another problem, namely, even though God supposedly preserved those passages that spoke of Muhammad he failed to do so for the rest of the Holy Bible! Again, note the following illustration:

Osama makes the following claims regarding the variant readings of the Quran:

RESPONSE:

Here are the responses to this lie:

Osama then tries to respond to my statement that the Holy Bible is better attested than any book of antiquity, including the Quran:

RESPONSE:

Quennel Gale has already documented what Bible theologians think. Read the above link that discusses and exposes Osama’s misinformation.

We had also presented many links discussing this issue in our first response. Here are some more articles for our readers:

Second, Osama erroneously assumes that unless the author of the book is known the book’s authenticity is in doubt. Osama doesn’t tell us why this is so and this is simply a fallacious claim which is not supported by scholars or historians.

What truly matters is if whether the evidence points to the book being written within the first generation of the eyewitnesses to these events, or is based on eyewitness testimony. Both the internal and external evidence demonstrates that the Gospels and the rest of the NT books were written within the first generation where literally hundreds, if not thousands, of both friendly and hostile eyewitnesses were still alive.

The late liberal theologian John A.T. Robinson in his book, Redating the New Testament, believed that all the NT books were completed before 70 A.D. The following comments from the late William F. Albright, considered to be one of the world's foremost archaeologists, regarding the composition of the New Testament are noteworthy:

We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today. (Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson, He Walked Among Us- Evidence For The Historical Jesus [Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, TN, 1993], p. 110 emphasis ours)

Albright also went on to say:

"In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew in the forties and eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75)." (Ibid.)

It is quite clear that Osama is alone in his radical claims regarding the alleged anonymity of NT authorship affecting its authenticity.

Third, it is obvious that Osama hasn’t read the articles that show what the words "Injil" and "Torah" mean. According to several Muslims, THESE TERMS DO REFER TO BOTH THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS RESPECTIVELY. Here is the link again:

In fact, had Osama read what we had written he would have seen that THERE IS NOT A SINGLE VERSE IN THE QURAN WHICH SAYS THAT THE TORAH WAS GIVEN TO MOSES:

Therefore, here is our challenge to Osama:

PRODUCE THE QURANIC VERSE(S) WHICH SAYS THAT ALLAH GAVE MOSES THE TORAH.

If you can’t, then how do you know that Moses even received the Torah? Where are you getting this information? We eagerly await Osama’s response.

Finally, the Holy Bible doesn’t claim to be a complete or exhaustive record on the life of the Lord Jesus. It claims to be a sufficient record:

"Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples that are not recorded in this book. But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:30-31

Seeing that the Holy Bible gives us all the information necessary for our salvation, what more do we need? This is unlike the Quran which claims to be a fully detailed record even though it is far from being a complete guidance:

This last claim is quite ironic coming from a man who believes in a book which has basically little to nothing of importance to say about Jesus’ life and mission. Talking about a column? One can take all the alleged words of Jesus from the Quran and would still be unable to fill a paragraph, let alone the page!

Osama then tries to tackle my exegesis of Luke 23:34:

RESPONSE:

Osama, it is funny how you need to change subjects and toss red herrings instead of dealing with my exegesis of Luke 23:34. And had Osama even bothered looking up those links which were posted at the end of my rebuttal he would have discovered that I deal with all these passages in detail, and clearly show that IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTEXTS these passages do nothing to refute the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The one passage I haven’t addressed is Isaiah 11, so I will now address it. Osama erroneously assumes that since the person referred to in Isaiah (which is Jesus of course) is inspired by the Spirit of the Lord to fear God, the person in question cannot also be God at the same time.

Osama’s argument is directly a result of his a priori assumption of Unitarianism, i.e. that God is one in Being and one in Person. Osama thinks that since God is only one Person then the shoot of Jesse (i.e. Jesus) cannot be that God. If he were that God then this basically would imply that he essentially feared himself.

Osama’s logic goes something like this:

1. God is only one Person.
2. The shoot of Jesse is both distinct from and fears God.
3. Therefore, the shoot cannot be God.

The problem with this syllogism is that premise 1 is false since God is not only one Person according to the Holy Bible. The shoot of Jesse can be both distinct from God and be God at the same time, precisely what Isaiah stated in an earlier chapter! Isaiah, under inspiration, wrote:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God (El Gibbor), The Father of Eternity (abi ad), The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this." Isaiah 9:6-7

According to Isaiah, the shoot of Jesse who will reign on his son David’s throne is the Mighty God himself and the Source of eternal life. Isaiah takes the same titles of the child and applies them elsewhere to the true God Yahweh:

"A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God." Isaiah 10:21

"O LORD, You are my God. I will exalt You, I will praise Your name, For You have done WONDERFUL things; Your COUNSELS of old are faithfulness and truth." Isaiah 25:1 NKJV

"LORD, you establish peace for us; all that we have accomplished you have done for us." Isaiah 26:12

"This also comes from the LORD of hosts, Who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in guidance." Isaiah 28:29

"For this is what the high and exalted one says, the one who rules forever, whose name is holy: ‘I dwell in an exalted and holy place, but also with the discouraged and humiliated, in order to cheer up the humiliated and to encourage the discouraged.’" Isaiah 57:15

There are individuals who, sharing Osama's skepticism towards Christianity, seek to deny that Isaiah 9:6 predicts the coming of the Messiah. Others go so far as to deny that these are the titles of the child. Jewish Messianic Scholar and Apologist Dr. Michael L. Brown responds:

"The oldest Jewish translation of Isaiah 9:6[5], found in the Septuagint, understands all the names as referring to the king, rendering this verse into the Greek as follows: ‘For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel [Megale he arche]: for I will bring peace on the princes, and health to him.’ The Targum, while explicitly identifying this as a Messianic prophecy, renders the verse in Aramaic with an interesting twist, ‘... and his name is called from before the One who is wonderful in counsel, the mighty God who exists forever, the Messiah, because there will be abundant peace upon us in his days’ (translated literally). The problem with this translation, aside from the fact that it is grammatically strained, is that almost all the names are heaped on God, and only the last two are given to the son - although it is the naming of this royal child that is central to the verse. How odd! Clearly, the names refer to the son, not to the Lord who gave them. In other words, the Targumic rendering would be like saying, ‘And God - the great, glorious, holy, wonderful, eternal, unchangeable Redeemer and King and Lord - calls his name Joe.’ There is no precedent or parallel to this anywhere in the Bible and no logical explanation for this rendering, nor is it even a natural, grammatical rendering of the Hebrew. The characteristics of the royal child are central - highlighted here by his names - not the characteristics of the Lord. As the brilliant Hebrew and Rabbinic scholar Franz Delitzsch noted, even Samuel David Luzzato, one of the greatest Italian rabbis, rightly observed that ‘you do not expect to find attributes of God here, but such as would be characteristic of the child.’ This agrees with the Talmudic and midrashic writings, along with the comments of Abraham Ibn Ezra, all of which state that the names refer to the child." (Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume Three, Messianic Prophecy Objections [Baker Books, Grand Rapid MI, 2003], pp. 32-33; bold emphasis ours)

In fn. 86, Brown writes:

... Cf. the following Rabbinic statements: ‘R. Yose the Galilean said: "The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace"’ (Midrash Pereq Shalom, p. 101); ‘The Messiah is called by eight names; Yinnon [see Ps. 72:12], Tzemach [e.g., Jer. 23:5]; Pele’ [Wonderful, Isa. 9:6(5)], Yo’etz [Counselor, Isa. 9:6(5)], Mashiach [Messiah], El [God, Isa. 9:6(5)], Gibbor [Hero, Isa. 9:6(5)], and Avi ‘Ad Shalom [Eternal Father of Peace, Isa. 9:6(5)];’ see Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:20." (Ibid. p. 210)

The great medieval commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra, despite applying the passage to Hezekiah, admits:

"The correct view in my opinion is that all these are names of the child. pele’ – because the Lord did wonders in his days. yo’ets – such was Hezekiah [as it is written], "And the king took counsel" [see 2 Chron. 30:2]; ’el gibbor – because he was strong, and the kingdom of the house of David was prolonged because of him; [abi] ‘ad – the word has the same meaning as "dwelling in eternity" [in Isa. 57:15]; sar shalom – because there was peace in his days." (Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, 2000, p. 46)

Section nine of the Huppat Eliyahu and section 7 of Rabbeinu HaKadosh in Otsar Midrashim apply all these names to the Messiah.

We see that, unlike Osama, Isaiah had no problem in asserting that the shoot of Jesse was both distinct from God and was God at the same time.

For more on Isaiah 9:6, please read the following articles:

Osama asks me the following question:

Here is my response: Mr. Abdullah the words Trinity or Holy Trinity do not have to be in the Holy Bible in order for it to be true. The Holy Bible teaches all the essential elements of the doctrine of the Trinity, which are:

1. There is only one God.
2. There are three distinct Persons who are called God and are given all the attributes of God.

Since Osama is operating under the false assumption that unless the term itself is found in the Bible it cannot therefore be true, we wonder what will he say regarding the Islamic concept of Tauhid. The following section is taken from one of the articles posted on MENJ's site:

Tauhiyd comes from the verb wahhad which literally means TO UNITE. In Islamic terminology, it means to realize and maintain the unity of Allâh in one's actions (inwardly and outwardly). The actual word tauhiyd does not occur in the Quran or Sunnah though the present tense of the verb (from which tauhiyd is derived) is used in Sunnah. The Prophet sent Muadh ibn Jabal as governor of Yemen in 9 A.H. He told him, "You will going to the people of the book, so first invite yuwahhidu Allâh [them to the assertion of the oneness of Allâh"].[1]

Further, the division of tauhiyd into the components known to us today WERE NOT DONE BY THE PROPHET OR HIS COMPANIONS. It was systematically defined as such in order to convey, as concisely as possible, the simple unitarian belief of Islam. This was necessary because as Islam quickly spread to the four corners of the world, new converts began to interpret the teachings of Islam in line with their own philosophical concepts of Allâh and so confusion arose. Preconceived interpretations, all of which are blameworthy, were propagated by those who wanted to destroy Islam from the inside. The first such enemy of Islam was an Iraqi convert from Christianity named Sausan who preached man's absolute free will while denying (qadr) Divine Decree[2]. His student, Ma`bad ibn Khalid al-Juhani[3], spread such deviant ideas until he was tried and executed by the Umayyad Caliph. There were three other such executions over the period of 26 years. The later Umayyad Caliphs were relatively more corrupt and cared less about such religious issues. At the same time, the masses were also relatively less educated about their religion. This proved to be a deadly combination. As the number of deviants increased through the liberation of various lands, apostates were no longer executed. Instead, Muslim scholars rose to execute the tide of heretics intellectually. Tauhiyd, precisely defined, EMERGED OUT OF THIS DEFENSE STRATEGY. Tauhiyd had been divided into the three following categories: tauhiyd ar-rububiyah, tauhiyd al-asma was-sifaat, and tauhiyd al-`ibadah or tauhiyd al-`uluuhiyah. Tauhiyd has been likened to a tree, the roots being tauhiyd ar-rububiyah, the trunk being tauhiyd al-asma was-sifaat, and the fruit being tauhiyd al-`ibadah. Each category of tauhiyd will now be discussed in some detail. (http://bismikaallahuma.org/God/tawheed.htm)

According to this author, neither the term Tauhid nor its component parts were taught by Muhammad or his Companions, but arose from the need to accurately define and defend Islamic monotheism from heretical elements that were plaguing the Muslim communities. Amazingly, when Christians admit that the word Trinity or its precise theological formulation do not appear in the Holy Bible, but was the result of trying to systematically and accurately define the Biblical teaching in order to safeguard it against the heretics who were plaguing the Christian communities with their false concepts, Muslims such as Osama often take this as an evidence that the Trinity is not a biblical teaching. Talk about a double standard!

If Osama is consistent he needs to reject the word Tauhid and its three branches since neither the Quran, Muhammad or his Companions taught or used these words. Using his logic, this would also imply that the Quran does not teach the unity of Allah since it doesn’t use these terms or concepts to express it!

Osama again tries to divert the issue by claiming that there is a serious forgery in Luke 24:44-48 and that Isaiah 53 proves his assertion regarding the Quranic view of Jesus, as well as casting doubt on the authorship of the Gospels. These issues have already been addressed in the links given above. The following link deals with his claim regarding Luke 24:44-48 as well providing links on the real meaning of Isaiah 53:

So we will omit all of Osama’s smokescreens and red herrings and focus on his next claim. Osama cites John 19:30-40 along with several OT passages and claims that there is a contradiction:

RESPONSE:

The first thing to note is Osama’s gross misreading of the passages:

Notice in Psalm 34:20, it says that GOD Almighty will protect "all his bones".; So, not even an inch from his bones will be damaged according to the Scriptures.

The text says nothing about bones not being damaged, but of bones not being BROKEN. Second, although there have been Christians that believe Psalm 34:20 predicted the crucifixion of Christ, a careful reading of the text shows that this is not referring to the Messiah. The passage that John seems to be alluding to is Exodus 12:46, as the NET online Bible note 102 states:

A quotation from Exod 12:46, Num 9:12, and Ps 34:20. A number of different OT passages lie behind this quotation: Exod 12:10 LXX, Exod 12:46, Num 9:12, or Ps 34:20. Of these, the first is the closest in form to the quotation here. The first three are all more likely candidates THAN THE LAST, since the first three all deal with descriptions of the Passover lamb. (http://netbible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl#note_102)

For more info please read the following article: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/proph-response.html

As far as Jesus’ bones being broken, this only shows that Osama hasn’t done enough research into this issue:

Fixing the Hands to the Cross

For centuries, most artists rendered the crucifixion of Jesus with nails in His hands. However, anatomical studies have shown that this will not support the weight of an adult male. Archaeological discoveries have shown that the nails were placed between the radius, ulna, and carpal bones. By this manner no bones would be broken.

Fixing the Feet to the Cross

After flexing the feet into an extreme position the feet were nailed, usually with one nail, to the stipe, between the second and third metatarsal bones. The result was that the individual was pinned in place with the knees bent, bearing full weight on the nails. This was an incredibly difficult position to maintain due to strain on the thigh muscles (try to stand with your knees flexed for just five minutes.) (http://www.dyeager.org/skeptic/deathofjesus.php; underline emphasis ours)

And:

The procedure of crucifixion may be summarized as follows. The patibulum was put on the ground and the victim laid upon it. Nails, about 7 inches long and with a diameter of 1 cm (roughly 3/8 of an inch) were driven in the wrists . The points would go into the vicinity of the median nerve, causing shocks of pain to radiate through the arms. It was possible to place the nails between the bones so that no fractures (or broken bones) occurred. Studies have shown that nails were probably driven through the small bones of the wrist, since nails in the palms of the hand would not support the weight of a body. In ancient terminology, the wrist was considered to be part of the hand. (Davis) Standing at the crucifixion sites would be upright posts, called stipes, standing about 7 feet high (Edwards). In the center of the stipes was a crude seat, called a sedile or sedulum, which served a support for the victim. The patibulum was then lifted on to the stipes. The feet were then nailed to the stipes. To allow for this, the knees had to be bent and rotated laterally, being left in a very uncomfortable position. The titulus was hung above the victim's head. (http://www.new-life.net/crucify2.htm; bold emphasis ours)

In fact, the lower arm between the hand and the elbow has TWO bones, i.e. you CAN drive a nail between them without damaging any of the bones themselves.

Similarly, feet consist of twelve bones (excluding the bones of the toes which are not important here) tied together with sinews and ligaments. It is easy to drive a nail between the bones without hurting any of these bones. Indeed, there are two famous "surgical lines" in foot amputation where you can take off part of the foot without damaging any of the bones. The x-ray image to the left shows a foot after amputation of the toes and part of the ray bones. One can clearly see the gap between the two heel bones (in the center of the image) which would be a suitable place to drive through a large nail. Hence, the spike merely separated the bones as it passed through the flesh.

The greater question is, how could a man who was so brutally crucified, pierced through his heart, declared officially dead, and sealed in a tomb for three days be raised from the dead? Only the miraculous power of God could do such a thing, and yet "many infallible proofs" (Acts 1:3) indicate that Jesus died such a death and was raised from the dead. The fact is that the miraculous power of God is involved in the fulfillment of many of the Biblical prophecies. Could God prevent the bones of Jesus from being broken? That's what the Scripture says happened. One may invent reasons for not believing, or he can accept the Biblical and historical evidence and believe God. It's a matter of willful choice. Osama chooses to ignore the evidence and willfully disbelieve.

As far as contradictions within the resurrection accounts are concerned, please read the detailed refutation listed here:

And do consult the following links which provide the overwhelming evidence demonstrating the historicity of the crucifixion, death and bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ:

Osama tries to tackle the issue of Jesus being called "Lord":

RESPONSE:

It is quite obvious that Osama really doesn’t have anything of substance to say here. I am well aware that the term Lord can have different meanings depending on the context and the referent. Yet, my article demonstrated that Christ is Lord in the sense of being Yahweh God since I showed that he has divine attributes and is the Source of Salvation. I also showed that Jesus was being addressed in prayer as Lord, something which, in light of the consistent OT pattern, demonstrates that the first Christians were worshiping Christ as God! Osama hasn’t even begun refuting these points.

Here are some additional passages demonstrating that Christ is Lord in the sense of being Yahweh God:

"because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation. For the scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Romans 10:9-13

Paul applied the following OT citation to the risen Christ:

"And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has said, among the survivors whom the LORD calls." Joel 2:32

Hence to call upon the name of Yahweh is to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus! And:

"For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living." Romans 14:9

"These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings ..." Revelation 17:14

Christ is the sovereign Lord of all, being Lord of both the living and the dead and Lord over all other rulers and authorities. This makes him God Almighty!

Osama makes the following erroneous claim regarding the worship given to Jesus:

If Osama is claiming that the Greek word proskuneo does not mean worship, then this is blatantly false. A careful look at any Greek Lexicon will demonstrate the absurdity of such a claim.

If Osama is claiming that the Greek word can also mean something other than worship, then he is correct. The word can have different meanings in different contexts, depending on who the subject or referent is in a particular text. The following articles present the lexical data and produce the evidence to show that Jesus receives the worship due to God:

Osama posts the following email from Ghostwriter:

RESPONSE:

Answered above. Much like Osama, Ghostwriter assumes that unless the word or the explicit formulation of the Trinity is found on the lips of Jesus in one succinct sentence then the doctrine is obviously false.

To show both the irrationality and irrelevance of this question, we present some questions of our own:

1. Where specifically in the Quran does Jesus allegedly deny the Trinity? (we say allegedly since the words attributed to Jesus in the Quran are not the words of Christ, nor are they the words of the true God)
2. Where in the Quran does Jesus ever deny that God is three Persons or that he is God’s Son in those exact words?
3. Where in the Quran does Jesus claim that he hadn’t come to die for the sins of the people?
4. Where does the Quran deny that the Holy Spirit is God, or claim that the Spirit is Gabriel?
5. Where does the word Trinity appear in the Arabic text of the Quran?
6. Seeing how significantly important the doctrines of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ and his vicarious death were to the Christians of Muhammad’s day, how could Allah fail to address and refute these teachings explicitly and/or by name?

Ghostwriter continues:

RESPONSE:

Had the author read the Lord’s Prayer carefully, he would have noted that Jesus wasn’t praying at all. Rather, Jesus was teaching his disciples HOW THEY SHOULD PRAY:

"Whenever YOU pray, do not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray while standing in synagogues and on street corners so that people can see them. Truly I say to YOU, they have their reward. But whenever YOU pray, go into YOUR room, close the door, and pray to YOUR Father in secret. And YOUR Father, who sees in secret, will reward YOU. When YOU pray, do not babble repetitiously like the Gentiles, because they think that by their many words they will be heard. Do not be like them, for YOUR Father knows what YOU need before YOU ask him. So pray this way: Our Father in heaven, may your name be honored, may your kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we ourselves have forgiven our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For if you forgive others their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive you your sins." Matthew 6:5-15

Had the person continued reading the NT he would have found Christ carefully making a distinction in his relationship with God from all the others:

"Jesus replied, ‘Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, "I am ascending to MY Father and YOUR Father, to MY God and YOUR God."’" John 20:17

Jesus does not say, "I am ascending to OUR Father and OUR God." Instead, Christ distinguishes between his and the disciples' relationship with the Father. At the Incarnation the Father and the Son entered into a new relationship since Christ became a servant of the Father. As such, the Father became Jesus' God. The Father was not always Jesus' God, but only became such when the eternal Word took on flesh. Christ did this in order that we might become what he already was and continues to be, namely sons of the Most High.

Ghostwriter next asserts:

RESPONSE:

Where is it written that Jesus had to mention the necessity of his death for sinners every time he spoke? Is there a command somewhere stating that unless Christ mentioned the necessity of his blood a certain number of times then his death wasn’t necessary for redemption? Again, if numbers determine truth then why is there only one Quranic verse (S. 4:157) which denies the crucifixion of Christ, a verse which is so controversial that Muslims have held widely differing interpretations regarding its precise meaning? See for instance the following article: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/crucifixion.htm

Secondly, the author attacks a straw man here. Which Christian claims that a believer doesn’t have to submit to God? The whole heart of the Gospel is that Christ died to ransom a group of people in order to make them wholly devoted to God:

"‘I (Jesus) will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you to open their eyes so that they turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a share among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but I declared to those in Damascus first, and then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds consistent with repentance." Acts 26:17-20

"For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not of works, so that no one can boast. For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them. Ephesians 2:8-10

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people. It trains us to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. He gave himself for us to set us free from every kind of lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are truly his, who are eager to do good." Titus 2:11-14

Ghostwriter continues:

RESPONSE:

Let us see what else Jesus said from that same Gospel:

"Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for me will find it. ‘Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me." Matthew 10:37-39

"Now a man came up to him and said, ‘Teacher, what good thing must I do to gain eternal life?’ He said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ ‘Which ones?’ he asked. Jesus replied, ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false witness, honor your father and mother and love your neighbor as yourself.’ The young man said to him, ‘I have kept all these things. What do I still lack?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. THEN COME, FOLLOW ME.’ But when the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he was very rich." Matthew 19:16-22

In both passages Jesus demands a devotion that no mere human can demand or deserves. This is seen in the last passage where Jesus singles out the last six commands of the Ten Commandments. These commands were given to govern a person's relationship with others. The first four commandments govern a person's devotion to God. Amazingly, Jesus never asked the man whether he had observed the first four commandments since wholly devoting oneself to Christ in self-sacrificial love is to fulfill not just these commands, but the greatest commandment of all! In other words, Christ demands the kind of love that one is to give to God alone. The only way Christ could do this if he believed he was God, which in fact he was(is)!

The writer claims:

RESPONSE:

Apart from the straw men and caricatures, it is quite obvious that the person has never read the Gospels carefully. If he has then he is willfully being deceptive here. If one were to read this parable IN CONTEXT, one will find whom the Father in the parable symbolizes:

"Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming to hear him. But the Pharisees and the experts in the law were complaining, ‘THIS MAN welcomes sinners and eats with them.’ So Jesus told them this parable: ‘Which one of you, if he has a hundred sheep and loses one of them, would not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go look for the one that is lost until he finds it? Then when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. Returning home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, telling them, "Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was LOST." I tell you, in the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need to repent. Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search thoroughly until she finds it? Then when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, "Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had LOST." In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of God's angels over one sinner who repents.’" Luke 15:1-10

Jesus was using the parables to explain why HE chose to identify and eat with sinners. In other words, Jesus is the Shepherd, the woman and the prodigal’s father as described in the three parables since he is the Shepherd who seeks and saves his lost sheep. In the words of the Lord himself:

"Then Jesus said to him, ‘Today salvation has come to this household, since he too is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save THE LOST.’" Luke 19:9-10

"I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me - just as the Father knows me and I know the Father - and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd." John 10:14-16

Furthermore, this shows a rather uninformed understanding of how parables function. Parables illustrate specific truths and, as such, not every aspect of a parable is intended to be literal; nor is it meant to correspond to every aspect of the truth or event that it illustrates. Jesus was illustrating his love for sinners and his desire in seeking them out in order to turn them away from their shameful acts and embrace him for their salvation.

The Ghost man continues:

RESPONSE:

The writer again shows that he has either not the read the Gospels, or is deceptively and deliberately twisting passages out of context:

"At that time the disciples came to Jesus saying, ‘Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’ He called a child, had him stand among them, and said, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven! Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a child like this IN MY NAME welcomes ME. ‘But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe IN ME to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:1-6

The context shows that Jesus was claiming that entrance into the kingdom depends on having childlike faith IN HIM as the object of one’s salvation. So this passage undermines the author’s claim!

Again, the Ghost speaks:

RESPONSE:

Several corrections are in order. The author is evidently ignorant of basic Muslim teachings since the claim that there are no intermediaries in Islam is false. Note for instance the following traditions:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
The Prophet said, "A man keeps on asking others for something till he comes on the Day of Resurrection without any piece of flesh on his face." The Prophet added, "On the Day of Resurrection, the Sun will come near (to, the people) to such an extent that the sweat will reach up to the middle of the ears, so, when all the people are in that state, they will ask Adam for help, and then Moses, and then Muhammad (p.b.u.h)." The sub-narrator added "Muhammad will intercede with Allah to judge amongst the people. He will proceed on till he will hold the ring of the door (of Paradise) and then Allah will exalt him to Maqam Mahmud (the privilege of intercession, etc.). And all the people of the gathering will send their praises to Allah. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 553)

... They would come to me and I would say, ‘I am for that.’ Then I will ask for my Lord's permission, and it will be given, and then He will inspire me to praise Him with such praises as I do not know now. So I will praise Him with those praises and will fall down, prostrate before Him. Then it will be said, ‘O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to; and ask, for your will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.’ I will say, ‘O Lord, my followers! My followers!’ And then it will be said, ‘Go and take out of Hell (Fire) all those who have faith in their hearts, equal to the weight of a barley grain.’ I will go and do so and return to praise Him with the same praises, and fall down (prostrate) before Him. Then it will be said, ‘O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.’ I will say, ‘O Lord, my followers! My followers!’ It will be said, ‘Go and take out of it all those who have faith in their hearts equal to the weight of a small ant or a mustard seed.’ I will go and do so and return to praise Him with the same praises, and fall down in prostration before Him. It will be said, ‘O, Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.’ I will say, ‘O Lord, my followers!’ Then He will say, ‘Go and take out (all those) in whose hearts there is faith even to the lightest, lightest mustard seed. (Take them) out of the Fire.’ I will go and do so."

When we left Anas, I said to some of my companions, "Let's pass by Al-Hasan who is hiding himself in the house of Abi Khalifa and request him to tell us what Anas bin Malik has told us." So we went to him and we greeted him and he admitted us. We said to him, "O Abu Said! We came to you from your brother Anas Bin Malik and he related to us a Hadith about the intercession the like of which I have never heard." He said, "What is that?" Then we told him of the Hadith and said, "He stopped at this point (of the Hadith)." He said, "What then?" We said, "He did not add anything to that." He said, Anas related the Hadith to me twenty years ago when he was a young fellow. I don't know whether he forgot or if he did not like to let you depend on what he might have said." We said, "O Abu Said! Let us know that." He smiled and said, "Man was created hasty. I did not mention that, but that I wanted to inform you of it.

Anas told me the same as he told you and said that the Prophet added, ‘I then return for a fourth time and praise Him similarly and prostrate before Him me the same as he ‘O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to; and ask, for you will be granted (your request): and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.’ I will say, ‘O Lord, allow me to intercede for whoever said, ‘None has the right to be worshiped except Allah.’ Then Allah will say, ‘By my Power, and my Majesty, and by My Supremacy, and by My Greatness, I will take out of Hell (Fire) whoever said: ‘None has the right to be worshipped except Allah.’" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 601)

The Muslim now faces a dilemma since his salvation is not anchored in Allah, but in a man. It is Muhammad who intercedes for Muslims and saves them from hell based on HIS WORK AS AN INTERCESSOR! These traditions show that the God of Islam does nothing to save a great number of Muslims, especially those in hell, apart from relegating the work of intercession to a finite, imperfect creature. For more on this subject, we highly recommend the following exchange between Jameel and Mohamed Ghounem: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Ghounem/savior.htm

(Note: There is a contradiction in the Quran regarding the permissibility of intercessors on the Day of Judgment. For more info, please read the following: http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/intercession.html)

This leads me to my second point. Christians do not believe that some creature intercedes for us, but believe that God himself in the person of his Son intercedes and makes atonement for all believers. Christ is God who became man in order to die for our sins and rose again to intercede for all true believers in the very presence of his Father.

Third, it is quite obvious that this person has no knowledge of basic Christian doctrine. What true bible-believing Christian denies the importance of STRONG individual faith without INTERMEDIARIES? The Christian has faith in Christ who, as we stated, is not just some intermediary but God incarnate. So our hope and devotion is in the triune God alone.

I omit the rest of the Ghost’s statements as well as some more of Osama’s smokescreens and ad hominems since both men operate under the assumption that repeating themselves ad nauseum will somehow convince their readers that their case has been proven.

In responding to my defense of why Christians call themselves servants of the cross, Osama ends up actually contradicting himself:

Osama states that the entire Bible is inauthentic. Earlier he provided a link indicating which parts of the Bible Muslims accept and why, and makes the same assertion there. Yet, he also makes the following interesting claims:

2-  The Bible and Hadiths (Sayings of Prophet Muhammad) were written in a
      3000-year and 200-year span respectively.  They both contain Truth and falsehood
      in them.

... Islam is a witness on the Bible.  It filters out the truth from falsehood and corruption in the Bible.  Anything that agrees 100% with Islam is valid, and anything else that has even the slightest disagreement with Islam is discarded: (Source)

In fact, in his most recent "response" (which is anything but an actual response, being simply another example of Osama's mantra syndrome) to Quennels' refutation of his claims, Osama writes:

We Muslims NEVER declared that the entire Bible is not from GOD Almighty. We declare that the Bible is mixed between GOD Almighty's Holy Words and man's alterations and innovations, which makes the entire Bible corrupt/doubtful. The Noble Quran makes a clear mention about this ... (http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels_rebuttal.htm; bold capital emphasis ours)

Osama says that anything that agrees with the Quran is valid, implying that there are parts of the Bible which are not corrupt. He even goes so far as to say that the Bible does contain truth. But if the entire Bible is corrupted, then how can there be any parts which are valid? So which is it? Do you accept parts of it or reject it all?

Note the contradictory claims being made by Osama:

And:

Hence, Osama has affirmed two contradictory positions:

1. The entire Bible is not authentic.
2. The entire Bible is not inauthentic.

Osama clearly doesn't know what he believes.

Isn’t it amazing that Osama uses this corrupted book to prove that God predicted his false prophet? Osama is clearly confused.

Osama produces links on alleged scientific miracles in the Quran. These links only show that Muslims are good at mistranslating and twisting the Quran in order to make it agree with modern science. The articles also demonstrate the failure of Muslims to deal with the refutation of their claims. Read for instance the following articles:

Osama proceeds to assault Paul:

RESPONSE:

Mr. Abdallah you quote from Muhammad’s book, a man who lived over 500 years after Christ. He claimed that he was God’s prophet without any proof and yet you take his word for it. I hope you see how desperate and weak your arguments sound.

Osama asserts that many popular Christians denied Paul. Amazingly, some of the men listed are not even Christians, such as Hyam Maccoby who was a Jew! Others, such as John Shelby Spong deny the virgin birth and miracles of Jesus, going so far as to suggest that Mary was perhaps raped (God forbid) and that is how she conceived Christ. Note for instance what he writes here:

So, in the task of rediscovering the true meaning of the stories of Jesus' birth, the first thing that must be faced is that these narratives are not accounts from memory of something that actually happened. Let me be clear, as most religious people like to hedge their language so that they do not offend. There was no annunciation of the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary. There was no star that shone in the sky to announce Jesus' birth. There were no wise men who followed that star. There were no gifts of gold, frankincense, or myrrh. There was no murder of innocent male babies by the wicked King Herod. There was no tax enrollment ordered by Quirinius, the governor of Syria, and thus no journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. There was no manger. There was no heavenly messenger who proclaimed the birth of this Jesus to hillside shepherds, no angelic chorus that sang "Glory to God the highest." There was no journey to the Temple in Jerusalem at age 12. All of these are storytelling creations of the Jewish mind, seeking to explain in a thoroughly Jewish way the experience that people had with the adult Jesus ...

There is also no irrefutable body of data about the parents of Jesus that is available for our knowledge, despite the elaborate traditions of Christian history. Mary might loom large in the developing Christian tradition, but she does not loom large in the early Christian writings. Her name appears only once in the biblical narrative before the ninth decade C.E. That sole mention was contained in a critical shout from a nameless person in the crowd and came in the form of a question: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?" It was a hostile question designed to insult or to question Jesus' origins. (People were normally identified with their father's name — if the father was known.) Certainly there was no suggestion, in this first biblical reference to the mother of Jesus, that she was a virgin or that Jesus' birth was in any way miraculous.

The suggestion that Jesus' paternity was in doubt or was a source of scandal also finds an echo in the Song of Mary in Luke's gospel, where the mother of Jesus is made to say, "He has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden," which could easily be a reference to the status of an unmarried but pregnant woman. Further hints of the scandal of his birth occurs in the Fourth Gospel, where a loud debate about Jesus' origins produces a member of the crowd who accosts Jesus with the words, "We were not born of fornication" (John 8:41). The clear implication of this text was that Jesus was so born.

It is also clear from a study of early Christian documents that early Jewish critics of Jesus and the Jesus movement made similar charges, even suggesting that Jesus was the child of a Roman soldier (whether by rape or by consent is not always clear). Perhaps the virgin-birth tradition was born as a Christian defense against such charges. Those are the facts of history; beyond them, we can say little more. (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/59/story_5924.html)

This means that if Spong is right then Muhammad was a liar and the Quran a lie for saying that Jesus was born of a virgin and performed miracles! Apart from this being a fallacy of appealing to authority, it is rather sad that Osama needs to appeal to such individuals in order to support his point.

As far as Paul is concerned, he was quite unlike Muhammad since the former was backed up by God supernaturally and confirmed by the eyewitnesses. Make sure to read the following responses and documentation for this:

Also, make sure to go here:

And look for all the articles dealing with Paul.

Osama seeks to deny that the rites of Hajj are pagan in origin:

RESPONSE:

YES YOU DO KNOW THAT THEY ARE PAGAN IN ORIGIN, which is why you go out of your way to provide alleged evidence denying it. If they didn’t originate from paganism then why even bother writing articles proving otherwise? Please consult my initial response for the links documenting the origin of these rites. Lord willing, I will be refuting Yishan’s alleged "responses" in the near future.

Osama tries to pull another fast one by shifting the focus of my argument concerning Muhammad’s kissing the black stone to a totally irrelevant point:

And:

RESPONSE:

Osama may claim that he doesn’t care about what the Holy Bible says, but Muhammad sure did:

"If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt." S. 10:94

Those are they unto whom We gave the Scripture and command and prophethood. But if these disbelieve therein, then indeed We shall entrust it to a people who will not be disbelievers therein. Those are they whom Allah guideth, SO FOLLOW THEIR GUIDANCE. Say (O Muhammad, unto mankind): I ask of you no fee for it. Lo! it is naught but a Reminder to (His) creatures. S. 6:89-90

Now then, for that (reason), call (them to the Faith), and stand steadfast as thou art commanded, nor follow thou their vain desires; but say: "I believe in whatever Book Allah has sent down; and I am commanded to judge justly between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord: for us (is the responsibility for) our deeds, and for you for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is (our) final goal. S. 42:15

Muhammad is told to follow the guidance of Israel and to confirm his message with the previous revelation. Therefore, when we check the previous record we find that Muhammad’s kissing a black stone is idolatry pure and simple.

Hence, whether it is mandatory to kiss the stone or not is irrelevant to the issue at hand, and is simply a red herring. The point that I was making is that the true God would not permit his servants to kiss any stone object as Muhammad did. Osama needs to address my arguments and not simply make things up.

Osama again attempts to attack straw man and throw red herrings. He responds to my claim that the crescent moon and the five pointed star are pagan symbols with:

RESPONSE:

First, I never brought up the issue of Allah being a moon god, so this is another red herring. Second, I am not talking about the use of the crescent in determining the days of fasting in the month of Ramadan. Rather, I am referring to the CRESCENT SYMBOL and FIVE POINT STAR that adorns Mosques and flags throughout the Muslim world.

Third, it is rather apparent that Osama has a hard time reading and likes to argue in a circle. It is irrelevant whether the Quran speaks of the five pillars since my argument didn’t center on whether the Quran prescribed these rites. Rather, my argument focused on THE ORIGIN OF THESE PILLARS, i.e. where did these rites come from and who initially instituted them? Muslims claim that Abraham and Ishmael instituted them, a claim that has been soundly refuted in the links given in my first response.

One thing that the Muslim sources agree upon is that the pagan Arabs BEFORE THE ADVENT OF ISLAM were already practicing these rites. Since there is no historical and archaeological proof linking these rites to either Abraham or Ishmael, one is safe in assuming that Islam simply took these heathen rites and claimed that they were initially instituted by God.

Fourth, since Osama claims that the Quran prescribes the five rites here is my challenge to him:

1. Please produce one verse which says that one must recite the "Two Bearing of Witnesses" in order to be a Muslim.
2. Please show me from the Quran where the five prayers are referred to by name and are made mandatory for the Muslims.
3. Please produce a verse from the Quran stating that one must give 2.5% of his/her annual income for charity.

This concludes my response. It has been quite evident that Osama wasn’t able to write a coherent reply and was forced to toss out red herrings, commit logical fallacies and run around the issues. After one more planned response to Osama’s alleged "rebuttal" to another one of my articles, I will refrain from engaging Osama. Until and unless Osama writes a meaningful reply which is both coherent and accurate, I will not bother wasting time responding to his material since it contains no substance whatsoever.

In the service of the risen and immortal Lord of glory, Jesus Christ, God’s beloved Son and our only true love, forever and ever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus, come. We will always love you, risen King!

Sam Shamoun

POSTSCRIPT

Earlier, I had stated that Osama knew very well that the pillars of Islam were pagan in origin. I would like to clarify what I meant by this. Osama knows that ACCORDING to the Muslim sources the pillars of Islam were being observed by the pagans prior to Muhammad's time.

Osama and others seek to undermine the damage that this has on Islam being a so-called "revealed Monotheistic" religion by arguing the position of the Quran and the traditions that Abraham and Ishmael instituted these practices.

Osama is well aware that there is no pre-Islamic evidence connecting these rites with either Ishmael or Abraham, since he is (and has been) aware of our articles that clearly demonstrated this. See the first response for the links.

So what does Osama do? He simply repeats the assertion that Abraham and Ishmael instituted these rites even though he is aware that this claim has been soundly refuted. He provides no counter evidence to undermine the data which conclusively show that neither Abraham nor Ishmael ever settled in Mecca, let alone institute practices which, according to the Muslims, were later perverted by the pagans.

Hence:

1. Osama cannot deny that the pagans practiced these rites.
2. Osama seeks to undermine the damage this has upon the alleged divine origin of Islam by appealing to the Abraham/Ishmael connection.
3. Osama has been unable to refute the arguments which show that these rites were NOT instituted by either Abraham or Ishmael.
4. Despite this, Osama still repeats ad nauseum that Abraham instituted these rites since he is aware that this is the only way to deny that the pagans initially instituted them.

So it is in this sense that Osama knows that these rites are simply pagan through and through.

Rebuttals to Answering-Christianity
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page