Friday, 30 September 2016

Jesus quotes from Talmud and alters the Torah!

Jesus quotes from Talmud and alters the Torah!

You know the commandments: 'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.'" (Mark 10:19)


Seems like jesus quoted the commandments from the Torah? With the exception of ONE!!! "you shall not defraud" that's not found in the law of commandments, So where did jesus get such a commandment and add it to the supposed divine law?? Where else the Talmud.. 


Resh Lakish said: Meshikah is explicitly provided for by Biblical law. What is Resh Lakish's reason? — Scripture saith, And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour, or acquire aught of thy neighbour's hand — i.e., a thing 'acquired' [by passing it] from hand to hand. But R. Johanan maintains, 'of [thy neighbour's] hand' is to exclude real estate from the law of fraud.  And Resh Lakish?  — If so,  Scripture should have written, 'And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not defraud:' why state, 'or acquire aught'? This proves that its purpose is to teach the need of meshikah. And R. Johanan: how does he utilise 'or buy'? — He employs it. even as was taught: 'And if thou sell aught … ye shall not defraud:' from this I know the law  only if the purchaser was defrauded. Whence do I know it if the vendor was cheated? From the phrase. 'or acquire aught…ye shall not defraud.' And Resh Lakish?  — He learns both therefrom.   (Talmud 

Baba Mezi'a 47b)

SACRED OBJECTS-Scripture saith, One man shall not defraud his brother:  his brother, but not hekdesh(Talmud Baba Mezi'a 56b)

SHAME !!!!!

Problems with the Lord's Prayer found in Matthew and Luke.

Problems with the Lord's Prayer found in Matthew and Luke.
(This ones gonna hurt)

For centuries now Our Christians friends have been relying upon the bible for guidance and salvation, this includes the teachings of Jesus and how he taught his followers (disciples) how to pray ? This doesn't come with no surprise, as the bible is an encyclopaedia of discrepancies with also find serious problems with the Lord's Prayer... Which wasn't spared from such problem... Let's examine the Lord's Prayer found in Matthew and Luke and see how words got crept in...


Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Matthew 6:9-13)

                                                      --------- COMPARE WITH ----------

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Give us day by day our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but  (Luke 11:2-4)


From the above two Lord's Prayer which were said to be from the extact incident not two different times, seems to tell us two different variance ? There seems to be a Transmission problem! Can you imagine if two different writers couldn't not agree upon a 4 line prayer how can you believe the rest of the sayings of Jesus ? This is was a scholar had to say

Comments by Eduard Schweizer regarding the differences between Matthew's and Luke's "Lord's Prayer":

  • The Lord's Prayer ([Matthew] 6:7-13)... The Lord's Prayer is found in a rather different form in Luke 11:2-4. It is astounding how little legalism the early Christians showed in transmitting the words of Jesus. 

It doesn't end there this problem only started its get even worse, in the transmission of Matthew we have an additional bit added to the Lord's Prayer which isn't found in the earliest Manuscripts! For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. Which is found in Matthews version is a later addition..

Hans Dieter Betz (The Sermon on the Mount: Hermeneia Series, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1995, pages 414-415) commented:
Christian liturgical usage knows a doxology following SM/Matt 6:13: "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory into the ages. Amen"... This doxology, however, was not part of the "original" Lord's Prayer; it was not part of the Matthean SM [Sermon on the Mount] either. The reasons for excluding it are text-critical: the best and oldest manuscripts do not have it, and the earliest commentaries on the Lord's Prayer do not know of it.580 Also, the parallel in Luke 11:4 does not have it.581 In addition, those manuscripts that do contain a doxology have it in a variety of forms.

580 Tertullian [160-225 A.D.], Origen [185-254 A.D.], and Cyprian [martyred 258 A.D.] do not know of it.
581 Interestingly, variant readings do not exist that would insert it into Luke 11:4.
Mary Baker Eddy, in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (Boston: The Writings of Mary Baker Eddy, 1910, page 16), says, 
There is indeed some doubt among Bible scholars, whether the last line is not an addition to the prayer by a later copyist; but this does not affect the meaning of the prayer itself. 
Bruce Metzger, in his definitive Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), comments regarding verse 13:
The ascription at the close of the Lord's Prayer occurs in several forms... Some Greek manuscripts expand "for ever" into "for ever and ever," and most of them add "amen." Several late manuscripts ... append a trinitarian ascription, "for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen." The same expansion occurs also at the close of the Lord's Prayer in the liturgy that is traditionally ascribed to St. John Chrysostom.
The absence of any ascription in early and important representatives of the [most reliable manuscripts], as well as early patristic commentaries on the Lord's Prayer..., suggests that an ascription, usually in a threefold form, was composed (perhaps on the basis of 1 Chr 29, 11-13) in order to adapt the Prayer for liturgical use in the early church. Still later scribes added "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."


There you have it, a complete mess! If the authors can't agree with the Lord's Prayer a simple 4 line statement how trust worthy is the NT? Later prayers added just for convenience could you even consider this as the word of God Or words of men's ? WHAT A SHAME!!!!!

Am I Cherry picking ??

Am I Cherry picking ??

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)

Cross reference with the text below ..

Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me. (John 12:26)


It seems clear in order to follow Jesus you have to be like him have no peace and use the sword...  Now i know Christians are going to say that's not a literal statement it's metaphorical, blah blah blah... Do you see how they do the same for our scriptures? Cherry pick and make it sound like it says what it reads. Also how do we know the first verse is metaphorical not literal?? 

Question posed by christians only backfires on them!!!

Question posed by christians only backfires on them!!!


Christians apologists often bring up the Surah 9:30 from the Quran, where Allah Swt informs us how the Jews called Ezra the son of God and how Christians call Jesus the son of God... They specifically focus on Ezra saying nowhere do we find in the bible that Jews called Ezra the son of God?????


Firstly correction the Quran is referring to a specific group of Jews they were the Jews from Yamen who claimed that Ezra was the son of God, so it wasn't all the Jews only specifc..

There is historical evidence that Jews did refer to Ezra as the son of Allah: the Encyclopaedia Judaica states, "H. Z. Hirschberg proposed another assumption, based on the words of Ibn Hazm, namely, that the 'righteous who live in Yemen believed that 'Uzayr was indeed the son of Allah.' According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle of messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah." Encyclopaedia Judaica, Ibid., p. 1108."

Secondly To make matters worse we read in Ezra and Nehemiah According to the Hebrew Bible he returned from the Babylonian exile and reintroduced the Torah in Jerusalem....  Your very bible the NT says in Romans 8:14 anyone led by the spirit of God is a son of god? And since Ezra was one of the reason the Torah was revived surely he should be classed as a son of God right?

Talmud tells us It has been taught: R. Jose said: Had Moses not preceded him, Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Torah for Israel. Of Moses it is written, And Moses went up unto God(Sanhedrin 21b)


Now let's use the same method Christians use and twist it back on them :

So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the WHOLE WORLD has gone after him! (John 12:19)

seriously the WHOLE WORLD went after Jesus ? Do you see how Christians fall into a dilemma if we was going to switch it back on them!  Now if we ask did the Whole World really go after him, naturally the answer they will give it NO it was a small group or people from the region a local area not the entire world... Why should we accept your explanation whilst you don't accept ours?

Second Dilemma

Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." (John 4:20)

The above is a dialoug between jesus and the Sammaritan lady notice how shes saying YOU JEWS claim that the place of worship is in jerusalem.. Which jews said place of worship is in Jerusalem Exclusively?

Third Dillemma

And Mordecai wrote these things, and sent letters unto all the Jews that were in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, both nigh and far, (Esther 9:20)

Seriously Mordecai wrote letters to ALL THE JEWS?????????

Forth Dilemma 

For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews,f 15who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind (1 thessalonians 2:14-15)

Perhaps the most interesting passage to backfire on them... According to Paul the Jews Killed Jesus?? Seriously the Jews did??? We shall leave that with you to Deal with.


When Christians say no jews took Ezra as the Son of God ask them the above questions!

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Yahweh a Magnificent liar!

Yahweh the Magnificent Liar!!!!

"Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When anyone among you brings an offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock.

"'If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, you are to offer a male without defect. You must present it at the entrance to the tent of meeting so that it will be acceptable to the LORD. (Leviticus 1:2-3)


Interestingly this god whom Christians and Jews believe in also known as Yahweh is one SUPER LIAR, with all due respect... HOW CAN YOU TRUST A LYING god! Let's read the book of Jeremiah yes the same man who called YAHWEH A DECEIVER! And why shouldn't be he had good reason to call him that... Read below how this lying god Yahweh told Jeremiah that he never told the children of Israel to offer and burn offering or sacrifices:

For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
(Jeremiah 7:22)


Point 1

In Leviticus, chapters 1-7 After delivering the Jews from Egypt, God went into minute detail regarding sacrifices and burnt offerings. However in Jeremiah 7:22 God denied that he ever said anything about sacrifices or burnt offerings.

Point 2

If Jeremiah actually was aware of the Torah then he would have known that yahweh was lying to him? Did Jeremiah not know of the book of Leviticus maybe not since this very same book Jeremiah tells us the Torah was distorted.. So this could mean either Yahweh did mention what Leviticus states or did not mention of a sacrifice and burnt offering which was added later... Then of course we have the FAMOUS PASSAGE

“How do you say: “We are wise, and the Torah of the Lord is with us? when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?” (Jeremiah 8:8 )

What a shame Yahweh lied to his Prophet, deceiving the man once again we find the same Jeremiah.. Confessing Yahweh tricked him

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
(Jeremiah 20:7

Jesus is not God

One wonders how do Christians miss such blatant verses?

Private blessing?

Yahweh wants your penis to say thanks to him!

If his loins have not blessed me, and if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep; 
(job 31:20)


Loins have not blessed him? I.e the private parts of a man this is no doubt since we have several other references where loin is the private part of a man for example :

All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six; (Genesis 46:26)

We can read from the above text all those souls who came with Jacob came out of his LOINS!


If his loins have not blessed me - This is a personification by which the part of the body that had been clothed by the benevolence of Job, is supposed to speak and render him thanks.

If his loins have not blessed me,.... Which were girded and covered with garments he gave him; which, as often as he put on and girded his loins with, put him in mind of his generous benefactor, and this put him upon sending up an ejaculatory wish to heaven, that all happiness and blessedness might attend him, who had so comfortably clothed him; 


Let's get a little deeper with the word loins the Arabic word for loins found in the bible is Sulb صُلْبِهِ which no doubt means the male private... So the question is is Yahweh expecting the Penis Male private part Loins for praise him?

Do you really want a god like Yahweh ask yourself!

Did the The ark of the covenant hold the tables only ???

There was nothing in the ark except the two stone tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the LORD made a covenant with the Israelites after they came out of Egypt. (1 kings 8:9)


having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant; (Hebrews 9:4)

Old Testament tells us the Ark of the Covenent held the tablets only, whereas the New Testament tells us it also had jar full of manna and Aaron's rod?? The question is why would the book of kings miss out the rest of the contents and hebrews not?? 

Did it take 1500 years untill the Jews knew what other contents were inside the Ark? It had to be an unknown Author to tell us.

A serious error made by Luke !!!!

A serious error made by Luke 

the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, (Luke 3:27)


The above genealogy found in Luke 3:27 has a serious error specifically where it says that Rhesa was the son of Zerubabbel. But Rhesa is an Aramaic word meaning 'Prince' and was Zerubabbel's title, not the name of his son. 

Now that's a Serious problem, this says a lot when Luke boasts that he has the best orderly account then anyone else?


We have a similar problem below and yes you got it, this was also written by Luke!

Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means "son of encouragement"), (Acts 4:36)

In Acts 4:36 , Barnabas does not mean 'Son of Encouragement', but 'Son of Nebo' or 'Son of a prophet'. To quote Hanson in 'Acts' (Oxford University Press 1967, p 81), 'it is unlikely that anybody who knew Aramaic could have made this mistake'. Barnabas appears in a list in Acts 13:1, together with Manaen (Menahem), whose name is much closer to 'Son of Encouragement'. Presumably Luke misread his list. He certainly never asked Barnabas what his name meant.

This only shows that the gospels are very unreliable !!!

Are womens Weak bible says yes!


Your TROOPS will be as WEAK and HELPLESS as WOMAN. The gates of your land will be opened wide to the enemy and set on fire and burned.
(Nahum 3:13)



Behold, thy people in the midst of thee are women,.... Or like women, weak and feeble, fearful and timorous; frightened at the first approach of the enemy; run away, and run up and down in the utmost consternation and distress, having neither skill nor courage to oppose them; 

Also The NIV hides the embarrassing misogyny by changing “women in your midst” to “weaklings”: “Look at your troops—they are all weaklings.”

Isaiah 19:16 — The NRSV correctly reads “On that day the Egyptians will be like women, and tremble with fear before the hand that the Lord of hosts raises against them.” The NIV eliminates the embarrassing misogynism as well as the polytheistic epithet of Yahweh: “ In that day the Egyptians will become weaklings. They will shudder with fear at the uplifted hand that the Lord Almighty raises against them.” (Note: this mistranslation was introduced with the TNIV. See this discussion of the passage at John Hobbins’s blog.)

He or She?

He or she?

A few years ago, several publications reported the discovery of a rare English Bible called The “She” Bible. This version of the Bible is called The “She” Bible because of a supposed error found in the translation of Ruth 3:15


The following is an excerpt of my study of Ruth 3:15 taken from my book:
That night, after Boaz finished eating, he came to the threshing floor and went to sleep. Ruth slept by his side. In the middle of the night, Boaz awoke and realized that Ruth was by his side. He told her to stay there with him until morning. In the morning, Boaz gave Ruth six measures of barley and then someone went back to the city.
(But, who went back to the city? It depends on what translation you read.)
The Revised Standard Version reads:
“And [Boaz] said, `Bring the mantle you are wearing and hold it out.’ So she held it, and he measured out six measures of barley, and laid it upon her; then she went into the city” (Ruth 3:15 RSV, emphasis mine).
The New Revised Standard Version reads:
“Then [Boaz] said, `Bring the cloak you are wearing and hold it out.’ So she held it, and he measured out six measures of barley, and put it on her back; then he went into the city” (Ruth 3:15 NRSV, emphasis mine).
The versions disagree on who went back to the city. The following versions agree with the Revised Standard Version and say that Ruth went back to the city:

They follow Conjecture !!!!

They follow conjecture !!!!

So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” 
(Matthew 27:17)


What's fascinating the criminal who was apparently released in exchange of Jesus, was called JESUS BARABBAS 

Read the NIV of Matthew 27:17 which the KJV has been hiding for centuries... 

Which means the jesus who is called the son of the father was released 
And Jesus was also the son of the father who was punished ??


There are also several historical sources other than the Bible and the Qur’an which confirm that many of the early Christians did not believe that Jesus died on the cross…The Cerinthians and later the Basilidians, for example, who were among the first of the early Christian communities, denied that Jesus was crucified…The Carpocratians, another early Christian sect, believed that it was not Jesus who was crucified, but another in his place… [2. ‘Ata’ur-Rahim M, Thomson A. Jesus, Prophet of Islam. London. Ta-Ha, 1996 (revised edition). p47.]

So who was released the evidence is clear.......

According to Paul Jesus isn't the only man who went to heaven!

According to Paul Jesus isn't the only man who went to heaven!

Below we find TWO passages from the New Testament where john seems to lie to this readers by claiming Jesus was the only man who has ever gone into heaven and came back from heaven?


No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven the Son of Man.
(John 3:13)

This is where Paul completely destroys johns concept of this heavenly figure Jesus 

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. (2 Corinthians 12:2-4)


Poor john, if only he read the epistles of Paul he wouldn't of embarrassed himself, some unknown guy goes to heaven simple as that lol. this is another reason to believe John was unaware of Paul's writing  though Paul wrote much earlier then john. The two never had any link with each other..

This also bring to mind, the robber who Jesus promised will be in heaven with him?? Isn't he in heaven now... So this statement of no man has EVER GONE TO HEAVEN IS A LIE... 

just for the records Elijah  and Enoch according to the OT went to heaven much before the so called saviour of Christians did!  (2 kings 2:11) (Genesis 5:24)

How can Jesus be from the descendent of David if he had no father?

How can Jesus be from the descendent of David if he had no father?

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; (Romans 1:3 )

Here we read Jesus was the direct descendant of David how's that possible if he had no father??

The Greek text literally means sperm seed (oσπέρματος spermatos)

Further we read he was referred as the son of David?

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
(Matthew 1:1)

He called out, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
(Luke 18:38)

Now we know via medical science males and females within there genes (DNA) carry chromosome females carry X chromosome and male carry Y chromosome 

Example when Y chromosome is released from the male and meets the X chromosome then the child born will be a Male and if the X chromosome is released from the males the only other chromosome it will meet is X because the female doesn't carry Y thus the child will be born as a female.... 

How could Jesus be the descendent of David if there was no DNA passed on? As the  Y chromosome  is only passed on Though a male? So it's no way possible for Jesus to be connected as a descended of David as there is no links 


This only concludes the Jesus you all portray was not born from a Virgin?? And even worse Mary whom they call virgin after having Jesus has more childrens from her spouse josepth, So why call her Virgin??

Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
(Mark 6:3)

The word messiah is not found in the Torah ?

The word Messiah is not found in the Torah ?

Imagine the 5 books known as the pentateuch which according to Jews and Christians Moses (Pbuh) wrote himself? Which contains 613 laws that are unbreakable, which Jews believe as the direct word from God to Prophet Moses (Pbuh) the very core of faith through believing the Torah as the book for Israelites :

This very Important book which is cherished by millions of Jews, this big encyclopaedia for Judaism DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORD MESSIAH!!


According to rabbis Asher Meza he said in one of his debates with a Christian zadoc Ben isreal , if Jesus being the Messiah was so important why doesn't the Torah being the core in Jewish belief does not contain the word Messiah ? The Torah doesn't revolve around the Messiah!   

Now the question is when Jesus said Moses spoke everything about him does that also include Jesus being the Messiah? 

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

No historians recorded Jesus's alleged crucifixion?

This paper is a response to Korede a Christian apologist whos been Showing bogus historical evidence on the alleged crucifixion!

Korede your pathetic, we simply asked you to show us evidence of who witnessed the crucifixion outside the bible and you couldn't even show that!!

He's quotes 3 historians or 2 for the sake of academic arguments 
But what's funny about he's post is that NONE WITNESSED THE ALLEGED CRUCIFIXION...

Let's examine he's claim!


Korede tells us Josephus (bin Matthias), wrote about the trial of Jesus in the presence of the council of Sanhedrin?? 

If that's the case where is your documented evidence?

In the nineteenth century an eminent scholar, Rabbi Wise, searched the records of Pilate’s court, still extant, for evidence of this trial. He found nothing. (Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 343)

Bear in mind all the historians Korede mentioned were born decades after the alleged crucifixtion, NOT A SINGLE WERE PRESENT WATCHING IT HAPPEN.

Josephus (bin Matthias) wrote a two volume BIOGRAPHY on the life of King Herod funny he never mentioned Herod ordering the massacre of children's like Matthew wrote in he's book matthew 2:16, Josephus and philos writing about Jesus was forged..


Below is a list of historians who existed during the first century, where are there writings about Jesus?

Apollonius Persius                                    Appian Petronius
Arrian Phaedrus                                        Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus
Columella Phlegon                                    Damis Pliny the Elder
Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger             Dion Pruseus Plutarch
Epictetus Pompon Mela                             Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian                             Hermogones Quintius Curtius
Josephus Seneca                                       Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus
Juvenal Statius                                          Lucanus Suetonius
Lucian Tacitus                                           Lysias Theon of Smyran
Martial Valerius Flaccus                             Paterculus Valerius Maximus

According to Remsburg,

“Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.”

Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the disciples or apostles; increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity. In other words, the only information of the life of Jesus comes from Christian believers.

There is no verification of a significant crucifixion in the writings of historians such as Philo, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Epictectus, Cluvius Rufus, Quintus, Curtis Rufus, Josephus, nor the Roman Consul, Publius Petronius. The crucifixion also was unknown to early Christians until as late as the Second Century. 

Forged version better then original?

Forged version better then original?

She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is! 
(Surah 3:47)

Let's read a similar passage from the gospels and compare the two :


Mary asked the angel, "But how can this happen? I am a virgin." The angel replied, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God.
(Luke 1:34-35)

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah happened in this way. When his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, before they lived together she was discovered to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. 
 (Matthew 1:18)


Did you spot the difference ?? Notice how the Quran gives us a Perfect Understanding of the Birth and annunciation of Prophet Jesus Pbuh, how Mary Pbuh was a Virgin and no man touched her she was free from any charges of ill thoughts. When she asked how can she have a child when no man touched her, the reply was "When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is". There is absolutely nothing derogatory found nor can one think how did  Mary Pbuh become pregnant, because Allah Swt has explained it to us Perfectly.

Compare this with the biblical narrations? See how earthly and derogatory it sounds? Mary of the bible had the Holy Spirit come upon her? She was made pregnant by the Holy Spirit? One can easily get ill thoughts and wonder what did the Holy Ghost do to make her pregnant?

Now Christians claim the Quran had copied from the bible I.e forged it? And the ultimate Question is How can a forgery be far better then the original !!

Can a book which Christians claim had forged their book be far more better and superior in explaining the annunciation of the birth of Jesus Pbuh then their own God?

How absurd!

Did Jesus of the bible lie to the Jews?

Another lie???

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


From the Above verse it seems pretty clear that Jesus is saying his testimony about himself is not true? Now why would Jesus being the chosen one utter such words? How would someone react to such a statement.. Especially the Jews ? And behold we have another passage found in the same book where the Jews challenge Jesus about what he said regrading his own testimony let's read the passage below :

The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid." Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. (John 8:13-14)


So here we read the Jews challenged Jesus on he's saying about his own testimony, but Jesus openly switched his words by saying "if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid," from what he said in John 5:31, we can see how it got switched in general terms we call this a lie... 

When the Jews corner him he lied his way out ? we know Jesus Pbuh would never lie, so now we have the authors to blame for such a horrendous false accusation 

But we know Christians believe that Jesus actually spoke all that which puts them into a dilemma SHAME!!

Where are the records?

Where are the records?

Caiaphas didn't say this on his own. As chief priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation. (John 11:51)


Surely such a statement would of been recorded by the scribes of the high priest.? How comes it was only John who recorded this so called Prophecy and nobody else. Are you saying these scribes who followed Jesus day in day out, who were the learned men's of the region did not record the words of the High priest.  highly unlikely, This only tells us John made up such a utterance.

Next problem the trial with Sanhedrin, was the trial of Jesus documented? Surely a trial of such a scale should of been documented so where are the written evidence? We are talking about the High Priest the Pharisees the members of Sanhedrin Present for a trial of a man who apparently was charged for blasphemy yet not a shred of written documents from any Jewish scribes, but only Mark,Matthew, Luke and John recorded? How absurd. We are told an earthquake took place the skies darkened for hours the temple curtain torn apart, yet nothing was documented? No historian no Jewish scribe Pharisee no one recorded such an event?

This raises another question if Jesus was supposed have been crucified  before Passover according to John 18:28 & John 19:14-16, this means the High priest and Jewish learned men's were not serious about their tradition found in the Torah.. Think about it a religious festival (ritual ) which comes once a year on a specific day was not taken seriously by the Jewish leaders just so they can convict a man who was already preaching for years? Wouldn't it make more sense that the Jewish leaders would keep Jesus in custody until the Passover was complete so they can complete their normal preparation day errands and consume work after all is complete? Not like they took the trial more serious then religious work..


The trial with Pontius Pilate 

Surely we should have loads of Evidence for this epic trial, not only were the Jews aware of such an event according to the gospels the Romans could never deny it that's if it really happened!!

In the nineteenth century an eminent scholar, Rabbi Wise, searched the records of Pilate’s court, still extant, for evidence of this trial. He found nothing. (Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 343)

Let's find out from Christians since they brag that we should ask them if we are in doubt?

If Luke was right the rest must be wrong?

If Luke was correct mark must of been wrong ?

Below we have two accounts from the same event, however they differ in the order of chronology : 


Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and later John the Baptist was arrested
(Mark 1:29-31)  (Mark 6:17-18)

while in Luke we find the opposite ??

John the Baptist was arrested and later Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law
(Luke 3:19-20)  (Luke 4:38-39)


How do u rectify  this problem, its the same event but in opposite order. now here's where the problem GROWS EVEN BIGGER, Luke tells us he has an accurate account of what happened during the Ministry of Jesus ?

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,  (Luke 1:1-3)


Note from the above passage from Luke how he states MANY HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO DRAW UP AN ACCOUNT? Who are all those Many, when Mark and Matthew are his only predecessors according to the Cannon, Also notice how he HAS AN ORDERLY ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS? Which means Marks order was WRONG and thats according to Luke if not how do u rectify this Discrepency 

Who are those Many, when Mark was the only one who apparently wrote before him? Unless there were many more if so where are their writings?

The jokes on you and your devil!

The jokes on you!

Now Christians often say Muslims have jinns with them as Hadith says so, since they don't have an understanding of the Hadith as they've never read the commentaries that should be added for a deeper understanding. I want make aware that Christian are indulging into a serious dilemma which will only expose them.

Firstly let's read the Hadith and clarify from commentary what the hadiths means :

It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is no one among you but a companion from among the jinn has been assigned to him.” They said, “Even you, O Messenger of Allaah?’ He said, “Even me, but Allaah helped me with him and he became Muslim (or: and I am safe from him), so he only enjoins me to do that which is good.” 
According to another report, “… There is assigned to him a companion from among the jinn and a companion from among the angels.” 
Narrated by Muslim, 2814 
Al-Nawawi included this in a chapter which he called: Baab Tahreesh al-Shaytaan wa Ba’thihi Saraayaahu li Fitnat il-Naas wa anna ma’a kulli insaanin Qareen (Chapter on the evil of the Shaytaan and his sending his troops to tempt the people, and the fact that there is a jinn-companion with every human being). 
Al-Nawawi said: 
Fa aslamu (and I am safe from him) or fa aslama (and he became Muslim). These are two well known versions. One means ‘and I am safe from his evil and his temptation.’ The other means that ‘the qareen became Muslim and became a believer, so he does not tell me to do anything but good’.  
There was some scholarly dispute as to the form of the word. Al-Khattaabi said that the word was Fa aslamu (and I am safe from him); al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad said that it was fa aslama (and he became Muslim), which is more correct, because the hadeeth says, ‘so he only enjoins me to do that which is good’.  
They also disputed as to the meaning of the word fa aslama.  Some said that it meant that he (the qareen) submitted and surrendered, as it was narrated elsewhere than in Saheeh Muslimfa astaslama [he gave up and surrendered]. It was also suggested that it means that he became a Muslim and a believer. The latter is the apparent meaning. Al-Qaadi said: Note that the ummah is unanimously agreed that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was protected from the Shaytaan in physically, mentally and with regard what he said. This hadeeth contains a warning against the temptation of the qareen and his whispers and temptations. We know that he is with us so we should beware of him as much as possible. 
Sharh Muslim, 17/157, 158 

Now that we've clarified the Hadith with understanding let's turn to the biblical understanding 


Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins
(Ecclesiastes 7:20)

The above passage is simple to understand right.. In other words There is not a single righteous person who can claim to say they are perfect and never sin or as the verse below states :
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
(1 John 1:8)

Now that we've gathered that everyone is a sinner, and I'm sure there is no Christian on the planet who can say they never sinned, or that may will never sin since they'd accepted Jesus as Their saviôur ? Because human erros are bound to happen that's why we read from the gospels that Jesus taught his followers how to pray and ask for forgiveness 

Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.'" (Luke 11:4)

It seems normal for a person to sin or else's why would Jesus teach his followers how to pray for forgiveness, which leads as to another dilemma.. If people are prone to sin as states from the Above passages, then one should also accept sinning is from the devil, thus there are Devils following people who are trying to make them sin in a regulate and us humans being more susceptible to those attack fall victims...

The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. (1 John 3:8)

Think of it if the devil was capable to tempting Jesus himself according to the gospels what makes you Christians more superior to not fall into his traps? Let's read what Paul  and James had to say about sinful natures also notice how James explicitly says resist the devil so HE CAN FLEE FROM YOU indicating the devil is very close to the believer!

For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. (Galatians 5:17)

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
(James 4:7)


Now the question goes bad to the Hadith though the understanding of a Christian, if we are prone to sin as stated and the devil keeps following us to make us sin wouldn't you agree every human would have some sort of a devil trying to deviate them? I believe we have sufficient evidence form the bible that the devil is always walking side by side with the believer to trap them!!!!!

Serpant or Satan?

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the...