Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – “The Sky Lighter” (updated)

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – Response to the Chick Tract “The Sky Lighter”

Originally Published: April 4, 2018

Updated: December 13, 2022

Read as PDF

“Allah has promised the believers, both men and women, Gardens under which rivers flow, to stay there forever, and splendid homes in the Gardens of Eternity, and—above all—the pleasure of Allah. That is ˹truly˺ the ultimate triumph.”

 – he Holy Quran, Surah Tawba, 9:72

This article is a continuation of the series “Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls”. We will now discuss the tract titled “The Sky Lighter.”[1]

“The Sky Lighter” – The Plot

            The story begins in a hospital, where a doctor informs an elderly woman (with a suspiciously evil look on her face) that her daughter-in-law has died, but that her baby has survived. With a disturbing grin, the woman declares that the baby is “mine” and that she will “raise him as my own son”. Taking the baby into her arms, she names him “Abdulla” and tells him that he “will be a great warrior”. She informs him that he (emphasis in the original) “will light up the sky” and that she will “celebrate” by passing out candy to the neighbors.

Four years later, another suspiciously evil-looking Muslim character declares that he will instruct the young boy (emphasis in the original) “in the Quran…and what awaits for him in a jihad”, which Chick translates as “holy war”.[2] This unnamed man explains to a group of children (while standing in front of a picture of Yasser Arafat) that the first caliph of Islam, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) once said (emphasis in the original):

“[t]hat even if he had one foot in Paradise, he could not trust Allah to let him in.”[3]

The man then explains that (emphasis in the original) “the only sure way in Islam to achieve Paradise…is to sacrifice your life in jihad.”[4]

Meanwhile, the boy’s grandmother also continues to “educate” him. As part of the lesson, she asks Abdulla to tell her where it says that Muslims (emphasis in the original) “must slay the idolaters (non-Muslims) wherever we find them”. Abdulla answers that the Holy Quran says so in “Sura 9:5”. His grandmother replies that his father would be proud of him. When the boy asks her about his father, she responds that his father “Ahmed” is in prison because “his heavenly robe failed to explode”. He was captured by the “devils” who prevented him “from becoming a martyr”. Abdulla responds by praying that his “bomb will work”, and his grandmother explains that this was the reason for his birth and that “Allah will bless you with special honors”.

In a different lesson, the evil-looking male Muslim preacher tells his “young warriors” that when their bombs explode and kill the “infidels”, they will be rewarded with “a palace of pearls…in which are 70 houses” in which will be “70 virgins” who will be “more beautiful” than they can imagine. He also explains that they will be given “the strength and appetite of 100 men…to enjoy eternity”.

After one of his lessons, Abdulla unexpectedly runs into his young neighbor “Yusuf” who was rumored to have been killed along with his uncle in an “accident”. Yusuf explains that his uncle had indeed been killed but he survived despite being “badly hurt”. Yusuf asks Abdulla if they could go someplace “where we can’t be heard”. He regales Abdulla with the story of the accident involving a truck (apparently it was a car accident). While recovering in the hospital, Yusuf explains that the hospital staff, especially the doctor, told him (emphasis in the original) “some very strange and wonderful things”. Yusuf asks Abdulla whether he wants to kill himself “so you can go to Paradise forever”, to which Abdulla responds in the affirmative, explaining that it was “why he was born”. But Yusuf explains that he:

“…discovered a way into heaven without blowing yourself up!”

Before explaining what this miraculous way into heaven is, Yusuf warns Abdulla that what he is about to tell him “could cost me my life”. He explains that the doctor in the hospital was one of the “People of the Book” and had given him a book, which Abdulla immediately realizes is the Bible. For some reason, Abdulla becomes “terrified” because it’s “forbidden”. But Yusuf urges Abdulla to remain calm and to listen and to trust him. Meanwhile, Abdulla’s grandmother has been searching for him. She is told by yet another menacing-looking Muslim character where she can find him.

Yusuf tells Abdulla that he has “heard about Abraham, Moses and the prophets”, to which Abdulla responds affirmatively. But then Yusuf asks him if he knows (emphasis in the original) “anything about the prophet Jesus”, to which Abdulla curiously answers with an emphatic “[n]o!”[5] Yusuf asks his friend if a “real prophet of God” can “lie”, to which Abdulla answers “[a]bsolutely not!” Yusuf then points out that (emphasis in the original):

“Jesus tells us that [h]e came from heaven to be born a man…and that [h]is Father sent him.”[6]

For some reason, Abdulla interprets this statement exactly as a fundamentalist Christian would. He responds that such a statement (emphasis in the original):

“…makes [Jesus] more than a prophet…that makes [h]im God!”[7]

Yusuf then explains that the Bible quotes Jesus as claiming to be “God” at his trial. When the High Priest asked him if he was “…the Christ, the Son of the Blessed”, Jesus responded by saying (emphasis in the original):

I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

Yusuf then regales the naïve Abdulla with more amazing stories about Jesus (peace be upon him). He quotes the Gospel of John (1:10) which states that Jesus (peace be upon him) made the world. The amazed Abdulla then asks Yusuf why Jesus (peace be upon him) even came into the world, to which Yusuf responds (emphasis in the original):

[t]o save us…for all of us are lost because of sin.”

Yusuf explains that humanity’s sins cannot be “washed away” by anything other than “God’s own blood”. Thus, “God the Son” allowed himself to be crucified “and die for our unrighteousness, to become sin for us.”

Meanwhile, Abdulla’s grandmother is hot on his trail. Another evil-looking Muslim tells her she saw two boys go into a shed and that “it looked suspicious”.

Yusuf further explains that if people simply “believe that [Jesus] died and rose again”, they would have “eternal life”. He admits that he has “received [Jesus] as my savior” because he is quoted in the Gospel of John (14:6) as saying:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

He warns Abdulla that Satan and the “mullahs” want him “dead”. He then asks why the “old men never blow themselves up…only the kids?” He tells Abdulla that while Jesus (peace be upon him) “came to give you eternal life”, Muhammad (peace be upon him) “offers nothing but death.” He urges Abdulla not to “listen to those people” who want him to kill himself. Finally, he states emphatically that he believes (emphasis in the original):

“…what Jesus said because Muhammad never rose from the dead!”[8]

By this time, Abdulla’s grandmother has tracked the boys down and overhears Yusuf’s passionate pleas to Abdulla. Overcome with anger, she vows to kill Yusuf. She breaks their secret meeting and chases Yusuf away.

Only 20 minutes later, Abdulla undergoes his final lessons for his suicide mission. His grandmother regrets that the “little infidel” Yusuf got away, but is confident that her “warrior will do his job”. Abdulla “caves in to the pressure”, and one month later, launches a suicide bombing. But after his death, he “stands before Jesus” who reminds him that he had “sent Yusuf to you” but that “you chose death”. When Abdulla asks “what about Muhammad”, the faceless “Jesus” says:

“Muhammad lied about [m]e and died in his sins. Now you will join him.”

And thus, poor Abdulla is thrown into hell. The tract ends with the following warning:

“Jesus is the only way to heaven. All who trust Islam, not Christ, will be cast into the lake of fire.”

Analysis of “The Sky Lighter”

            Since we have already analyzed a few Chick tracts about Islam, it should be obvious that Chick never had the intention of providing a fair and honest depiction of Muslims. We have seen time and again how Chick resorted to dishonest caricatures of Muslims in an effort to demonize Islam and try to win converts to his religion. “The Sky Lighter” is no different. In the tract, Chick depicts the life of a young suicide bomber, and equates it with Islam. But as with previous Chick tracts that we have examined, we will find that upon examination, “The Sky Lighter” is just another piece of Chick’s absurd propaganda.

Figure 1: The evil grandmother in “The Sky Lighther” is another fictional caricature of Muslims in Jack Chick’s bigoted comics.

First, the tract revolves around sinister Muslims planning to send a young boy to his death on a suicide mission. This is part and parcel of Chick tracts about Muslims. Abdulla’s grandmother, his teacher, and even random Muslim characters all are depicted in the darkest way possible. They are all evil, angry, and prone to violence. The reality, of course, is quite different. But unlike most other tracts, “The Sky Lighter” does not quote Quranic verses or the ahadith. Instead, it mostly just paints all Muslims with the same brush, and Chick was probably relying on the fact that most of his readers would already see Muslims in a negative light. Besides this unfair representation of Muslims, which does not require much discussion, there are a few other issues that need to be discussed.

One of the most glaring errors in the tract is the definition of the Arabic word “jihad”. Since 9/11, it has become almost a household word in the western world. But many people still do not understand it. In short, Chick defined “jihad” simply as “holy war”, but that is actually not the correct definition. As The Encyclopedia of Islam explains, the “literal” definition of “jihad” is “to strive or struggle (in the path of God)”.[9] Of course, in that sense, “jihad” can also include “religiously sanctioned warfare”,[10] but the word itself does not mean “holy war”.

Next, Chick’s evil Muslim teacher quoted a statement attributed to the first Caliph of Islam Abu Bakr (may Allah be please be with him) in of his lessons. As a way to indoctrinate the young Abdulla into becoming a suicide bomber, the teacher claimed that Abu Bakr once said:

“[t]hat even if he had one foot in Paradise, he could not trust Allah to let him in.”

Chick appealed to the Islamic scholar Khalid Muhammad Khalid’s book Successors of the Messenger as his source for this statement. Unfortunately for Chick, this book is actually freely available on the Internet, and any person who is actually interested in truth can check if Chick was providing an honest quote. Upon checking Khalid’s book, we find that Chick not only took what Abu Bakr really said out of context, he also just flat-out lied. Here is how Khalid’s book actually quotes Abu Bakr (emphasis ours):

“By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from Allah’s punishment, even if one of my feet was in Paradise.”[11]

In other words, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was saying that he was afraid of Allah’s punishment for his sins even if he had set one foot in Paradise. As Khalid stated, this was actually due to Abu Bakr’s humbleness:

“[a]lthough he had such a faith…he was afraid that his heart might go astray. […] From this point of view too, he strongly kept himself far from any aspect of vanity and loftiness.”

So, Abu Bakr was being humble and emphasizing his sins rather than his good deeds. As another example of his humbleness, Khalid said of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him):

“[o]n the day he had a great wealth in his possession, he asked himself why he should be blessed with such wealth, while the Muslims were suffering from a great poverty: ‘Am I better than them? He answered himself: ‘No doubt, I’m not better than they. Then, let’s live equally in such a bliss.”

Thus, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was a man of great faith and humbleness, and when anyone tried to praise him or remind him of his great “position in Allah’s sight”, he would worry about his sins instead and would say “I’m not the best of you”. That was the mark of a man who refused to be proud and vainglorious, even though he was already promised a place in Paradise.[12]

But Chick’s lies did not stop there. The evil Muslim teacher, after having misquoted Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), then told his young students that:

“[t]he only sure way in Islam to achieve Paradise…is to sacrifice your life in jihad.”

This is simply not true. If it were true, then would not Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) have been the first to sacrifice his life in jihad (since according to Chick, he could not “trust” Allah to let him into Paradise)? To be sure, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) selflessly put himself in harm’s way many times when the pagans of Mecca were persecuting Muslims, and he fought alongside the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in all of his battles.[13] But why didn’t he ever go on a suicide mission if that was the “only sure way” to achieve Paradise? It is well known that he actually died of natural causes at the age of 63 and was then succeeded by Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) as Caliph.[14]

The fact is that the Holy Quran and authentic ahadith show that Paradise is assured to all righteous believers, regardless of whether they sacrificed their lives in jihad or not:

“˹But˺ Allah will surely admit those who believe and do good into Gardens, under which rivers flow, where they will be adorned with bracelets of gold and pearls, and their clothing will be silk, for they have been guided to the best of speech, and they have been guided to the Commendable Path.”[15]

Faith in Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) and doing righteous deeds will assure a person of Paradise. What these “righteous deeds” are is explained in another verse:

“[r]ighteousness is not in turning your faces towards the east or the west. Rather, the righteous are those who believe in Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Books, and the prophets; who give charity out of their cherished wealth to relatives, orphans, the poor, ˹needy˺ travellers, beggars, and for freeing captives; who establish prayer, pay alms-tax, and keep the pledges they make; and who are patient in times of suffering, adversity, and in ˹the heat of˺ battle. It is they who are true ˹in faith˺, and it is they who are mindful ˹of Allah˺.”[16]

Notice that the “righteous” are those who have faith and patience in adversity, give charity, pray, and honor all pledges.

In fact, deeds other than fighting in the cause of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) can guarantee a place in Paradise, so long as the person is also a Muslim. For example, compassion for one’s children can guarantee Paradise, as demonstrated in an authentic hadith:

“’Aisha reported: A poor woman came to me along with her daughters. I gave her three dates. She gave a date to each of them and then she took up one date and brought that to her mouth in order to eat that, but her daughters expressed desire to eat it. She then divided the date that she intended to eat between them. This (kind) treatment of her impressed me and I mentioned that which she did to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ). Thereupon he said: Verily Allah has assured Paradise for her, because of (this act) of her, or He has rescued her from Hell-Fire.”[17]

In some cases, a person’s patience in the face of tragic loss in this life will guarantee him/her a place in Paradise:

“Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Allah says, ‘I have nothing to give but Paradise as a reward to my believer slave, who, if I cause his dear friend (or relative) to die, remains patient (and hopes for Allah’s Reward).”[18]

Of course, fighting in Allah’s cause is itself a righteous deed, and one who dies in this state, will receive a great reward as well. In fact, those who fight will receive a greater reward than those who don’t, but this in itself shows that sacrificing one’s life is not the only way to gain Allah’s reward (though it might confer greater rewards):

“Those who stay at home—except those with valid excuses—are not equal to those who strive in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has elevated in rank those who strive with their wealth and their lives above those who stay behind ˹with valid excuses˺. Allah has promised each a fine reward, but those who strive will receive a far better reward than others…”[19]

As Dr. Mustafa Khattab explains, “those with valid excuses” include women, the elder, and sick people.[20] Thus, if a person in incapable of fighting due to a disability, he/she will still receive a reward from Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) for being a Muslim. In addition to disabled people, the blind, elderly, women and children are also exempted from fighting in Allah’s cause. Based on the above verse, the 13th-century commentator Ibn Kathir stated that:

“[t]his Ayah indicates that Jihad is not Fard on each and every individual, but it is Fard Kifayah (which is a collective duty).”[21]

In fact, women were not required to participate in any expeditions, although they did sometimes accompany the Muslim army to attend to the wounded.[22] But according to many ahadith, the best “jihad” for women was to go on the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca):

“Narrated `Aisha (the mother of the faithful believers): I said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! We consider Jihad as the best deed.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “The best Jihad (for women) is Hajj Mabrur.”[23]

Other ahadith also confirm that the reward for performing the Hajj is nothing less than Paradise. For example, a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari states:

“Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “(The performance of) `Umra is an expiation for the sins committed (between it and the previous one). And the reward of Hajj Mabrur (the one accepted by Allah) is nothing except Paradise.””[24]

How then can “sacrificing your life” be the only “sure” way to Paradise? If it were so, women, children, and the disabled men would have no “sure” way in. But as the Holy Quran states, all believers (men and women) are promised Paradise:

“Allah has promised the believers, both men and women, Gardens under which rivers flow, to stay there forever, and splendid homes in the Gardens of Eternity, and—above all—the pleasure of Allah. That is ˹truly˺ the ultimate triumph.”[25]

Thus, sacrificing one’s life in jihad is not the only “sure” way in. Not only that, but “martyrdom” can be achieved in different ways, as shown in the following hadith:

“It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abdullah bin Jabir bin ‘Atik, from his father, that his grandfather fell sick and the Prophet (ﷺ) came to visit him. One of his family members said: ‘We hoped that when he died it would be as a martyr in the cause of Allah.’ The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘In that case the martyrs of my nation would be few. Being killed in the cause of Allah is martyrdom; dying of the plague is martyrdom; when a pregnant woman dies in childbirth that is martyrdom; and dying of drowning, or burning, or of pleurisy, is martyrdom.’”[26]

Based on this hadith, we can see that a woman who dies giving birth will be guaranteed Paradise due to her sacrifice, insha’Allah, and so will a person who dies of an illness. Therefore, Chick’s claim that the only way into Paradise (according to Islamic teachings) is by sacrificing one’s life in jihad is patently false.

To make matters worse for Chick, a person who indeed sacrifices his life in jihad is not necessarily guaranteed a place in Paradise if his intention was not solely for the pleasure of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) but instead for showing off. This is shown in the following hadith, which states that a “martyr” will be brought before Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) for judgement:

“Allah will make him recount His blessings (i. e. the blessings which He had bestowed upon him) and he will recount them (and admit having enjoyed them in his life). (Then) will Allah say: ‘What did you do (to requite these blessings)? He will say: I fought for Thee until I died as a martyr. Allah will say: You have told a lie. You fought that you might be called a ‘brave warrior’. And you were called so.’ (Then) orders will be passed against him and he will be dragged with his face downward and cast into Hell.”[27]

So, a “martyr” who sought martyrdom for personal glory rather than for the sake of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) will actually go to hell.

Furthermore, if one dies after committing an act of oppression against a non-Muslim who has been given the status of “Mu’ahid”, he will not go to Paradise either:

“Narrated `Abdullah bin `Amr: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Whoever killed a Mu’ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelled at a distance of forty years (of traveling).”[28]

This rule applies not just to non-Muslims living in a Muslim country but also non-Muslims living in a country which has a treaty with Muslims.[29] Chick’s simplistic approach to the issue of salvation in Islam was clearly biased and mistaken.

Next, Chick appealed to a common (and erroneous) interpretation of the Quran. Abdulla’s evil Muslim grandmother, the one who raised him to become a suicide bomber, referred to the so-called “Verse of the Sword” (Surah Tawba, 9:5) and told Abdulla that this verse is a command to Muslims to “slay the non-Muslims” wherever they may be found. But in actuality, this verse is not a command to kill any or all non-Muslims, but rather a particular group. When read in context, it is clearly referring to the pagans of Mecca who had violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyah.[30] It is quite evident that it does not refer to all non-Muslims, as shown in verse 13 of the same surah:

“Will you not fight those who have broken their oaths, conspired to expel the Messenger ˹from Mecca˺, and attacked you first? Do you fear them? Allah is more deserving of your fear, if you are ˹true˺ believers.”

Clearly, this cannot be referring to all non-Muslims, but specifically those who persecuted Muslims and violated their treaty obligations.

Next, Chick’s evil Muslim teacher, the one who misquoted Abu Bakr, regaled his young students (including Abdulla) of the pleasures that await them in the afterlife after they have blown themselves up. The teacher promises them palaces in Paradise and 70 virgins in each palace. Chick’s source for this information, as usual, was the pseudo-scholar and apostate Mohammad Al-Ghazoli’s book Christ, Muhammad and I, which we have discussed in other articles already and exposed as a shoddy piece of religious propaganda from an ignoramus masquerading as an expert.

But let us further demolish Chick’s favorite source. We will respond to some of Al-Ghazoli’s pathetic rants in chapter 12 of his book. The chapter is entitled “Suicide Bombers and Paradise”. On page 237, right from the get-go, Al-Ghazoli makes a major blunder. He credulously asks the reader:

“…in Palestine-Israel…Christians constitute 12% of the population. Why has no Christian Palestinian committed the act of suicide bombing?”[31]

So, Al-Ghazoli was trying to make the point that only Muslims commit suicide bombings and that since Palestinian Christians, who suffer just as much under Israel’s occupation (ironically, Al-Ghazoli didn’t show much concern about the suffering of Palestinian Christians), have resisted this tactic in their fight for justice. Unfortunately for Al-Ghazoli, whose research skills were obviously severely lacking, there indeed have been Palestinian Christian suicide bombers! As Theodore Sayeed explained in a 2012 article on MondoWeiss (but referring to attacks carried out well before 2007 when Al-Ghazoli’s book was published):

“[t]he PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine] has conducted ten suicide bombings. And that’s just Palestinian Christians, not counting Lebanese or German.”[32]

The PFLP was a secular resistance group and was led by the Palestinian Christian George Habash, who died in 2008.[33] In addition to suicide bombings, the PFLP also:

“…pioneered the hijacking of airplanes as a Middle East terror tactic — one eventually employed by the al-Qaeda hijackers on 9/11 — way back in 1968 when three PFLP armed operatives commandeered an Israeli El Al airliner enroute from Rome to Tel Aviv.”[34]

But it gets worse for Al-Ghazoli and other ignorant Christian fanatics! As it turns out, one of the most well-known groups to have utilized suicide attacks as a tactic of war, the Lebanese group Hezbollah, actually has had “diverse religious backgrounds” among its suicide bombers, including Christians! According to Esposito and Mogahed:

“[i]n attacks in Lebanon in the 1980s, the attackers included only eight Muslim fundamentalists, plus three Christians and 27 communists and socialists.”[35]

In addition, a well-known study of all suicide attacks between 1980 and 2003, conducted by Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago, has shown that “Muslim” suicide attacks accounted for half of the 315 attacks in that time period. But the one single group responsible for “the largest number of attacks (76 out of 315)” was the Tamil Tiger nationalist movement in Sri Lanka, not Al-Qaida, Hamas, or Hezbollah.[36] So Al-Ghazoli clearly had no idea what he was talking about. For someone to be so bold and aggressive in his criticism of Islam, one would think that he would have done more thorough research. But as it now stands, he has been exposed as a liar and shoddy researcher.

But it is understandable why Al-Ghazoli rushed to link suicide bombings exclusively to Muslims. It was the first step in answering his own question:

“[w]hy would a Muslim so cruelly end his young life at his own hands?”[37]

He answers by claiming that the answer is found “in what Islam teaches about their Paradise”.[38] In other words, Al-Ghazoli believes that some Muslims become suicide bombers because they want to go to the Islamic Paradise, which promises sensual delights, as well as “rivers of wine and milk” and other pleasures. But this is nothing but a poorly constructed non-sequitur. The argument that suicide bombers kill themselves because they want to get into Paradise is refuted by the fact that killing oneself, especially when committing an act of oppression, is explicitly forbidden in Islam.[39] As the Encyclopedia of Islam states:

“[s]uicide, the willful taking of one’s own life is…often considered to be morally wrong and an offense against God in Islam.”[40]

Similarly, the late scholar Yusuf Al-Qaradawi stated that:

“[t]he Prophet (peace be on him) warned that anyone who commits the crime of suicide will be deprived of the mercy of Allah and will not enter the Garden…”[41]

So, if getting a quick path to Paradise is the impetus for carrying out bombings against non-Muslim civilians, then it is misguided and will ultimately lead a person not to Paradise but to hell.[42] As we have seen, killing a non-Muslim who has been given “protected” status, whether as a citizen of a Muslim state or as a member of a non-Muslim treaty state, is prohibited and the one who does it is threatened with hell. This rule applies in a Muslim state in which there are non-Muslims as well as a non-Muslim state where there are Muslims. As the contemporary scholar Shayk Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi states:

“Muslims who live in non-Muslim lands in any continent…have entered those countries under covenant and contract, manifested in either the visa, documents for residency, or citizenship. Each of these documents…contain an agreement, signature, and consent that he or she is a peaceful resident, not a combatant…”[43]

In addition, even during wartime, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) explicitly prohibited the killing of non-combatants. Only combatants can be targeted. So, targeting and killing unarmed civilians is a major sin, and thus, a suicide bomber would not go to Paradise, but rather to hell.[44]

Next, let us briefly discuss some of the pro-Christianity claims made by Abdulla’s naïve friend “Yusuf”. The young and inexperienced Yusuf had been converted by a Christian doctor while he was recovering from a car accident. One of the more bizarre allegations that Chick expressed in his illustration of Abdulla and Yusuf’s secret conversation was that Muslims do not know anything about the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). When Yusuf asked whether Abdulla knew anything about Jesus (peace be upon him), Abdulla said “no”. But how could this be when Abdulla obviously read the Quran, which mentions Jesus (peace be upon him) more times than even Muhammad (peace be upon him)? This is an example of the ridiculous plot holes in Chick tracts. If not for the more serious allegations made in these tracts and the unfortunate popularity of the tracts, one would simply laugh them off as the work of a buffoon and ignore them!

Next, Yusuf asked Abdulla if a prophet can lie. Of course, Abdulla said “absolutely not”. Yusuf then pointed out that Jesus said that he “came from heaven to be born a man…and that his Father sent him”. For some reason, Abdulla concludes, like a fundamentalist Christian, that this statement makes him “God”! Apparently, Chick needed to make it sound like the statement was a clear admission of divinity, so that even a Muslim, who has never even read the Bible, would reach that conclusion. However, this is clearly faulty logic. Assuming Jesus even said this (which is impossible to prove), how could he have been “God” if he was “sent” by God? If anything, a lay person who hears such a statement for the first time, and is not a Trinitarian, would logically conclude that Jesus was inferior to his “Father”. Thus, he could not be divine, unless of course, one believes in multiple gods who exist in a hierarchy, as was common in pagan mythology. For example, in the Greek pantheon, Zeus was the supreme and most powerful deity, while other deities like his “son” Ares, his “daughter” Athena, and “brother” Hades were less powerful.

Next, Yusuf quoted another alleged saying of Jesus, when the latter responded to the High Priest’s questions during his trial. According to Mark 14:62, Jesus admitted to being “the Christ, the son of the Blessed”, which was a claim of “divinity”, according to Yusuf. But Yusuf was being quite selective, as this quote is according to the gospel of Mark only. When comparing Mark to Matthew and Luke, the answer given by Jesus (peace be upon him) is quite different:

Mark 14:62

Matthew 26:64

Luke 22:70

“‘I am,’ said Jesus. ‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’”

You have said so,’ Jesus replied. ‘But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’”

“They all asked, ‘Are you then the Son of God?’

He replied, ‘You say that I am.’”

Why are there different answers to the same question? This clear contradiction has led scholars to conclude that the saying in Mark is not authentic. As the late Geza Vermes stated:

“[t]he plain affirmative reply in Mark…is the odd man out. It conflicts with the general line of reply ascribed to Jesus, which was ‘You have said so’ or ‘You say that I am’. The phrase implies a negative answer according to rabbinic literature. It should also be observed that in conformity with mainstream tradition some manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel read ‘You say that I am’.”[45]

So, when the naïve and misinformed Yusuf asked “can a real prophet of God lie”, the answer would be “no…but those who wrote his biography could!” There is no way to reconcile the two different answers to the High Priest’s question. Either Jesus emphatically said “I am” or he gave a negative response to the question (“you have said so”). The latter seems to be the stronger option given Matthew and Luke’s gospels (assuming of course that the story of the trial is even historically reliable, which is unlikely). Thus, this response by Jesus (peace be upon him) at his alleged trial does not mean he was claiming divinity.

As for the statement that Jesus will be “on the right hand of power” and “coming in the clouds of heaven”, Vermes first pointed out that it is highly improbable that the conversation between the High Priest and Jesus even took place. He stated:

“…we must bear in mind the improbability of an interrogation of this sort within the framework of a formal meeting of the Jewish high court. The Sanhedrin was not permitted to meet at night, let alone during a night which was already part of a Sabbath or a festival. […] So a priori the genuineness of the dialogue is doubtful.”[46]

Vermes also observed that Luke omitted “the reference to the Parousia in the clouds”.[47] So what did “Jesus” really say?! We simply cannot know for sure. The poor Yusuf had been deceived by missionary propaganda. When the alleged sayings of “Jesus” are analyzed using historical criticism, many of them are rendered suspect. This is the inconvenient truth about the Bible that most Christians, including Chick and his colorful cast of ignorant Christian characters, would not be willing to admit.

To make matters worse, if Jesus was threatening the High Priest, as Vermes noted,[48] then his threat was proved to be a false prophecy. Neither the High Priest nor anyone else present at the trial witnessed Jesus “coming in the clouds of heaven”.[49] Indeed, one of the clearest examples of false prophecies in the Bible is Jesus’ alleged promise that the “kingdom of God” would come soon and that his disciples would live to see it.[50]

At this point, Chick’s “born-again” Yusuf described standard Christian dogma about salvation, which we will not discuss here. However, he did make another rather bizarre and logically flawed statement which deserves a brief comment. Yusuf admitted that the reason he believed what “Jesus” said (even though what he “said” depends on the source) was “…because Muhammad never rose from the dead!” This is truly bizarre, if not childish, reasoning! We must ask a pertinent question: since when is resurrecting from the dead the criterion for believing what someone said? Is this a Biblical criterion? As a matter of fact, it is a baseless argument for a few reasons:

  1. First, Yusuf assumed the historical reality of Jesus’ alleged “resurrection”, but there is no reason to believe that he did resurrect simply based on the testimonies of contradictory and anonymous documents (i.e., the New Testament).[51]
  2. If resurrecting from the dead is the criterion for deciding who to believe and who not to believe, then Christians should believe in any of the myriad number of deities found in pagan mythology![52]
  3. According to the Bible, the criterion for judging whether a professed prophet is telling the truth or not is simple: if what he says comes true, then he is a true prophet, but if what he says does not come true, then he is false.[53]
  4. If resurrection is the basis for rejecting Muhammad (peace be upon him), then by default, all of the Biblical prophets can be disqualified as well, since none of them resurrected from the dead!

Finally, let us briefly discuss the end of the tract, when poor Abdulla ignored Yusuf’s advice and warnings, and “[caved] in to the pressure” by blowing himself up in a crowd, only to find himself being judged by a faceless and gigantic Jesus. This “Jesus” condemned Abdulla to eternal hellfire by saying the following:

“[d]epart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”

This verse is from Matthew 25:41 and was one of Chick’s favorite quotes from the Bible. But when the verse is read in context, it actually cannot be applied to true followers of Islam, and demonstrates Chick’s deception even when quoting his beloved Bible. In Matthew 25, Jesus (peace be upon him) was talking about the judgement of the righteous (the “sheep”) and the sinners (the “goats”). But this distinction was not based on which religion people followed, but rather if they fed and clothed the poor, showed hospitality to strangers, and cared for the sick. The “righteous” would be rewarded for being charitable, whereas the sinners would be punished for neglecting their charitable duties. It is for this reason that Jesus (peace be upon him) would say to the latter:

“[d]epart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.”[54]

There is clearly no distinction of what is “true” religion and “false” religion. The basis for the judgement is purely good works and helping your fellow man and applies to all nations (Matthew 25:32). As Vermes stated:

“…man’s behaviour towards his fellow man is employed as the moral yardstick by which good and evil actions are ultimately distinguished. The perspective is universal, with no specific reference to Jews or Gentiles: all the nations stand before the divine tribunal.”[55]

Interestingly, this parable of the “sheep and goats” has no “parallel” in any of the New Testament books.[56] It is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. The only parallel is actually found outside the canonical Bible, in the “Similitudes of Enoch”, which Vermes dated “to the last decades of the first century AD…”[57] As in Matthew 25, in the “Similitudes”, the “son of man” sits on a throne and “[condemns] sinners to destruction”, and it is quite possible that this non-canonical book may have had some “influence” on “the redaction of the Gospel of Matthew”.[58]

As for the judgement being done not by God but by the “son of man”, Vermes argues that this motif was the result of a “twofold maturation” of what was originally a Jewish concept. The first influence was by “the model of Enoch” and then by “the ideology of the early church”. In both cases, the “son of man” is “imitating” God but is not God Himself.[59]

So, this parable simply cannot apply to Muslims. In contrast to Chick’s absurd warning at the end of the tract, all followers of Islam will not be thrown into the “lake of fire”. Chick was actually misquoting the Biblical Jesus! To make matters worse for the missionaries, a concept similar to the one in the parable of the “sheep and goats” is also found in the teachings of Islam, that of helping your fellow man:

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: Verily, Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, would say on the Day of Resurrection: O son of Adam, I was sick but you did not visit Me. He would say: O my Lord; how could I visit Thee whereas Thou art the Lord of the worlds? Thereupon He would say: Didn’t you know that such and such servant of Mine was sick but you did not visit him and were you not aware of this that if you had visited him, you would have found Me by him? O son of Adam, I asked food from you but you did not feed Me. He would say: My Lord, how could I feed Thee whereas Thou art the Lord of the worlds? He said: Didn’t you know that such and such servant of Mine asked food from you but you did not feed him, and were you not aware that if you had fed him you would have found him by My side? (The Lord would again say): O son of Adam, I asked drink from you but you did not provide Me. He would say: My Lord, how could I provide Thee whereas Thou art the Lord of the worlds? Thereupon He would say: Such and such of servant of Mine asked you for a drink but you did not provide him, and had you provided him drink you would have found him near Me.”[60]

Just as Jesus (peace be upon him) said in the parable, the hadith explains that when one visits the sick or feeds the hungry, it is as if he/she is doing it to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), because He is with the sick and the hungry, even though Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) is free of such needs. Given this clear teaching from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as well as the poor job Chick did of quoting the Bible out of context, we can see that his pathetic threat at the end of the tract falls flat.


            We have analyzed Chick’s anti-Islamic tract “The Sky Lighter” in this article. Using another flawed plotline, Chick attempted to malign Muslims as violent people who are enslaved to a violent religion. But in our analysis, we uncovered yet more proof of Chick’s deception and ignorance. His poor research, using ridiculous source like the apostate Al-Ghazoli, coupled with deliberate deception show how low he was willing to go to lure unsuspecting and naïve Muslims (like the fictional “Yusuf”) away from the beautiful religion of Islam. Once the façade of Christian self-righteousness is torn away, all that is left is the face of deception. This is what the anti-Islamic missionaries have been about for hundreds of years.

And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!


[2] Translating “jihad” as “holy war” is of course inaccurate, as we will see inshaAllah.

[3] Chick cites Khalid Muhammad Khalid’s work “Successors of the Messenger” for this quote, but as we will see, this is just another example of Chick’s deliberate deception, as he very clearly misquotes what Khalid’s book actually says.

[4] As we will see, this statement is also completely false and inaccurate.

[5] It is curious that a Muslim would say that he knows nothing about the prophet Jesus, since the Holy Quran mentions him many times! This is another example of Chick’s ridiculous caricatures of Muslims as either violent or completely ignorant people. But as we have already seen throughout this series, not many people can match Chick’s own ignorance!

[6] Of course, the poor misguided Yusuf was only repeating what he heard from the unnamed Christian doctor. But a more mature and knowledgeable person would know that to say that “Jesus tell us…” or that “Jesus said…” are all subjective statements, simply because we cannot determine with much historical certainty what Jesus actually said! The Bible says a lot of things, but unfortunately for Christians, not all of it is verifiable or true. Interested readers can read the numerous articles on the Bible on the blog to see for themselves why the Bible is not a trustworthy book.

[7] The reality, as we will see, is that such a statement does not imply at all that Jesus was claiming to be “God”. Indeed, even the Bible itself proves that Jesus (peace be upon him) was merely a man and never claimed divine status.

[8] If that was the condition for believing in someone, then perhaps Yusuf should have converted to one of the ancient pagan cults of dying and rising gods!

[9] Stephen Cory, “Jihad”, in Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Juan E. Campo (New York: Faces On File, Inc., 2009), p. 397.

See also John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think (New York: Gallup Press, 2007), p. 17.

[10] Cory, op. cit., p. 397.

[11]; see p. 99 in the PDF.

[12] There are many ahadith which mention the Prophet Muhammad’s promise that Abu Bakr will be in Paradise. One hadith will suffice here:

“Narrated Abu Musa: The Prophet (ﷺ) entered a garden and told me to guard its gate. Then a man came and asked permission to enter. The Prophet said, “Permit him and give him the good news that he will enter Paradise.” Behold! It was Abu Bakr” (Sahih Bukhari, 7262;

[13] Aysha A. Hidayatullah, “Abu Bakr”, in Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Juan E. Campo (New York: Faces On File, Inc., 2009), p. 9.

Also, just as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had set strict rules of conduct during a war, so did Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). As Khalid explains, his instructions to the Muslim armies included the strict prohibition of killing the elderly, women and children, as well as leaving places of worship and monks alone (; see p. 8).

[14] Ibid.

[15] Surah Al-Hajj, 22:23.

[16] Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:177.

[17] Sahih Muslim, 2630;

[18] Sahih Bukhari, 6424;

Similarly, a Muslim who suffers the loss of his/her children, and remains patient, will be guaranteed Paradise:

“It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: “There are no two Muslims, three of whose children die before reaching puberty, but Allah will admit them to Paradise by virtue of His mercy toward them. It will be said to them: ‘Enter Paradise.’ They will say: ‘Not until our parents enter.’ So it will be said: ‘Enter Paradise, you and your parents”‘” (Sunan An-Nasai, 1876;

[19] Surah An-Nisa, 4:95.



[22] Jami at-Tirmidhi, 1575;

[23] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1520;

For the meaning of the term “hajj mabrur”, see the following:

[24] Sahih al-Bukhari, 1773;

[25] Surah Tawba, 9:72.

[26] Sunan Ibn Majah, 2803;

[27] Sahih Muslim, 1905a;

[28] Sahih al-Bukhari, 6914;

[29] As the contemporary scholar Shayk Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi states:

“[i]t is not permissible to a kill a non-Muslim under contractual protection nor a non-Muslim combatant who is given security by a Muslim” (Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi, Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal of its Religious and Ideological Foundations [USA: Sacred Knowledge, 2015], p. 34.

[30] See The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary, ed. Seyyed Hossein Nasr (New York: HarperOne, 2015), pp. 505-506.

[31] Mohammad Al-Ghazoli, Christ, Muhammad and I, trans. R. Winston Mazakis (California: Chick Publications, 2007), p. 237.



[34] Ibid.

[35] Esposito and Mogahed, op. cit., p. 78.

[36] Heather N. Keaney, “Suicide”, in Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Juan E. Campo (New York: FactsOnFile, 2009), p. 642.

[37] Al-Ghazoli, op. cit., p. 238.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Perhaps Al-Ghazoli can explain, using his own pathetic reasoning, why early Christians were so obsessed with being “martyred” that some actually demanded that the Roman authorities execute them for being Christians! Candida Moss, professor of the New Testament and Early Christianity at Notre Dame University, mentions an interesting account involving the Roman governor C. Arrius Antoninus around the year 185 CE. According to Moss:

“…a mob of Christians marched to the home of C. Arrius Antoninus…and demanded to be executed. The governor, no doubt irritated by the interruption, sent the Christians away, telling them that if they wanted to die, they had cliffs to leap off and ropes with which to hang themselves” (Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom [New York: HarperOne, 2013], p. 144).

Using Al-Ghazoli’s childish reasoning, we could ask: why were these Christians so obsessed with dying? Were they in a rush to get to Paradise? What was the motivation to willingly seek torture and death at the hands of disinterested Romans?

[40] Keaney, op. cit., p. 641.

[41] Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam (Al-Hilal Wal Haram Fil Islam), tr. Kamal El-Helbawy et al., (Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1999), p. 328.

owever, Qaradawi had previously generated controversy by issuing a fatwa allowing suicide bombings in Palestine but had clarified that this was due to extenuating circumstances. According to a 2015 article in “Al-Araby”:

“[t]he scholar said that although those living under Israeli occupation may still use suicide bombing due to their “special circumstances”, as Palestinians now have the use of rockets to defend themselves from Israel, such operations are now more questionable, marking a departure from his previous comments that condoned such attacks” (

And as we have already seen, it was not just Palestinian Muslims who conducted suicide bombings, but Palestinian Christians as well. But regardless of any debate on whether suicide bombings are allowed in “special circumstances” or not, there is no debate among Islamic scholars that attacking non-combatants is explicitly forbidden.

[42] As it stands, most experts on the subject of suicide terrorism agree that the impetus for suicide bombings is not religion, but foreign occupation. According to Keaney:

“…Pape has argued that suicide terrorism is primarily a response to foreign occupation, rather than being a phenomenon of Islamism…” (Keaney, op. cit., p. 642).

[43] Al-Yaqoubi, op. cit., p. 31.

Shaykh Al-Yaqoubi also quotes the Hanafi scholar Al-Haskafi regarding the responsibilities of Muslims in non-Muslim lands (the “land of war”):

“[a]ny Muslim who enters the land of war under the pledge of security cannot kill, loot, or commit fornication with any one of them, as Muslims stand by their contract” (Ibid.).

As for the protection allotted to non-Muslims living in a Muslim state, Shayk Al-Yaqoubi quotes the famous scholar Al-Asqalani:

“[a]nyone who has a contract with the Muslims, whether by jizya (tax), by a truce from a sultan, or by security from a Muslim, is included” (Ibid., p. 33).

[44] On a side note, Al-Ghazoli made a rant about the descriptions of sexuality in the Islamic Paradise, because he evidently took offense at the “profane/sexual language” used by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)! According to Al-Ghazoli, this language is “embarrassing” (Al-Ghazoli, op. cit., p. 239). But the ignoramus’ personal opinions aside, one has to wonder if he found the “profane” language of the Bible to be equally “embarrassing”. Just a few examples should suffice:

“While the king was at his table, my perfume spread its fragrance. My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts” (Song of Solomon, 1:12-13).

“Your breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies” (Song of Solomon, 4:5).

“I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers. Thus I have become in his eyes like one bringing contentment” (Song of Solomon 8:10).

“There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses” (Ezekiel 23:20).

Those are quite vivid descriptions of sexual organs, but it seems Al-Ghazoli did not find them offensive! This is yet another example of the self-righteous hypocrisy of some Christian apologists.

[45] Geza Vermes, The Authentic Gospel of Jesus (London: Penguin Books, 2003), p. 26.

[46] Ibid., p. 193.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid., p. 254.

[49] For more, see here:

[50] See our article on false prophecies in the New Testament for more:

[51] Read more on the resurrection here:

[52] The “dying and rising god” motif is very common in pagan myths. There are several examples:

  1. Attis – a “vegetation god” who was worshipped in Phrygia (modern Turkey) as well as Greece and Rome. His “rebirth” was celebrated every spring.
  2. Baal – in the Canaanite myth, Baal challenged Mot, the god of death, only to die in the process. He was resurrected only after Mot was killed by Anat, Baal’s consort.
  3. Osiris – the Egyptian god was killed by Seth but was resurrected by Isis.
  4. Tammuz – another “vegetation god” who was worshipped in Mesopotamia. According to the myth, Tammuz had to dwell in the underworld for half of the year.

For more on “dying and rising gods”, see Arthur Cotterell and Rachel Storm, The Encyclopedia of World Mythology: A Comprehensive A-Z of the Myths and Legends of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, India, China and the Norse and Celtic Lands (London: Lorenz Books, 2006), pp. 312-313.

In any case, the myth of Jesus’ “resurrection” has no solid foundation. It is just as historically suspect as the resurrection myths of Attis, Baal or any other pagan deity.

[53] See Robert Youngblood, F.F. Bruce and R.K. Harrison, Compact Bible Dictionary (USA: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004), p. 498.

By this standard, however, the Biblical Jesus is ironically shown to be a false prophet (astagfirAllah), because he falsely predicted his return within the lifetimes of his disciples!

[54] Matthew 25:41-43.

[55] Vermes, op. cit., p. 151.

[56] Ibid., p. 150.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid., pp. 150-151.

Of course, this idea is foreign and blasphemous to Islam, as judgement belongs only to God. However, even In Pauline Christianity, the “son of man” will ultimately be “made subject” to God as well:

“Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:27-28).

Not only that, but according to Matthew and Luke, even the disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him) will share in the judging:

“Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28).

“…so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:30).

However, in the Tanakh, judgement is the right of God alone, as shown by numerous verses. A few examples will suffice:

“Can anyone teach knowledge to God, since he judges even the highest?” (Job, 21:22).

“God is a righteous judge, a God who displays his wrath every day” (Psalm 7:11).

“Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance” (Psalm 82:8).

[60] Sahih Muslim, 2569;

137 thoughts on “Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – “The Sky Lighter” (updated)

  1. John Stewart

    Great job on the article. Another point worth noting on the “Jesus(as) rose from the dead” argument is by this logic we shouldn’t believe in Abraham(as), Moses(as) or David(as). They were prophets as well so does that make them liars?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Jesus(as) rose from the dead”

      if a liar said worship your creator the one to whom every part of your existence has been made possible, i would believe the liar than random pagan man god with holes in his hands and feet and who tells people “make me your lord”

      we will say again and again, nothing comes between us and Allah. kristians can come up with all bs like “muhammad pbuh died…” but they will never cause our hearts to be given to created idols in the flesh.

      all prophets, jesus, muhammad taught to turn to Allah in trust and sincerity.

      lailah illALLAH all the way. we should be inspired by martyrs who would say schema and shahada then give their hearts to creature

      Liked by 1 person

      1. John Stewart

        Very true akhi. I always find it funny when Christians are like “Muslims are the followers of the Anti Christ”. I think every time you’re the ones who thinks God comes down as a man. Which of is more likely to follow the person who claims to be God?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Paulus

        Perhaps Jesus had muhammadans like you in mind when he said,

        “So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
        John 20:25,27-29 –,27-29&version=NIV

        Alhumdulillah muhammad was a fraud! Alhumdulillah Christ is the truth!

        Btw, I’ve noticed how quiet here and BT is without Christian commentators. You’re so desperate for interaction you spam that site with links to here 😂😂😂


      3. Boy, you really are obsessed with my internet activity, aren’t you? LOL!!!

        What’s the matter, boy? Bored? Nothing to do but chase your tail? By the way, how old were those little girls in Numbers 31? 😉

        LOL, your contradictory and anonymous gospels don’t impress anyone. Tell me, Cerbie. How did Jesus answer the high priest?


      4. Oh and by the way, how is it “spamming” if I put one link? I linked to the Jack Chick post, as I have been doing whenever I publish a new article.

        Speaking of spam, guess what Cerbie? Your garbage post actually ended up in the “Spam” comments! ROTFL!! Talk about irony!


    2. Good point! I will include that in the article, inshaAllah.

      It’s such a childish argument. I guess this is the best they can do at this point. It’s a good sign that the missionaries are losing and they are getting desperate. Alhamdulillah!


  2. John Stewart

    @ Paulus
    Go to your local library and rent the book “The 5 Gospels”. They had around 80 Christian scholars come in and debate about what did Jesus(as) actually say in the NT. They then tallied the votes and graded red (highly likely), pink (more than likely or to the effect), blue (more than likely fake) and black (no doubt fake).

    The Thomas story was… black. I’m blanking on the reasons given but I highly recommend it.

    Also while you’re there go rent a book called “The Bible Cutting Room Floor” by Dr. Hofmman and he will go through the OT.

    I really don’t understand how you can worship a human. Why wouldn’t you just worship the one who created him?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Paulus

      And let me guess…you would totally reject literary criticism applied to the Koran and ahadith?

      I guess you haven’t caught up. There is actually a swing at on the moment on accepting the Historicity of GJohn. But that’s what academia does. It shifts and moves. Which is why muhammadan reliance on older liberal scholarship is so pathetic.

      Ok cheerio. Enjoy your little interaction of three and 11 likes.


      1. John Stewart

        Why do you feel the need to insult? I haven’t said anything offensive it’s a fact John has forgeries in it such as the lady taken in adultery so I don’t understand the point you’re making. John is clearly not written by the disciple John and knowingly contradicts the Synoptics. I never argued there is no historical value at all in the gospels but it’s on the same level of any Christian Apocrypha.

        Finally, we do have literary criticism of Qur’an and hadith hence the grading system ranging from Mutawatir (Multiple independent chains) to Mawdoo (fabricated). If we were to apply out literary criticism to any of the books in the Bible they would almost all be thrown out just on “we don’t know who wrote this”. Most Christian scholarship attesting to “biblical historicity” is no more than: “Look it calls a governor a prefect, that’s what Romans called their governors!!!” How historically reliable!!! The author had to have been there!!!”

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Paulus

        Nonsense. Where is the multiple attestation/witness that Gabriel spoke to muhammad in a cave?

        On that one criteria alone the Koran is rejected.

        We could add the known addition of apocryphal sources used in the Koran. Do you accept those same literary conclusions? Didn’t think so. As I said, it’s hypocritical. You adopt one set of assumptions for the bible and in the same breath disregard them for the Koran.

        Furthermore, the only reason you have your science of Hadith , etc, is because several hundred thousand Hadith were fabricated in a few decades. Those criteria don’t rescue the Koran.


      3. Hahaha, always deflecting to Islam, eh? Here is the gist of Cerbie’s…ahem…”rebuttal”:

        “Well, the same criticism can be applied to the Quran. and it’s hypocritical. I don’t know how to refute the claims about the Bible, so I’m just going to deflect to the Quran, so there…”

        “Where is the multiple attestation/witness that Gabriel spoke to muhammad in a cave?”

        LOL, silly goose. There were many witnesses to subsequent times when Gabriel (as) visited Muhammad (pbuh). You don’t need to have witnesses to every single event. But the meeting in the cave is attested by multiple ahadith, as well as the Quran. So, there is no doubt as to its authenticity. This is in contrast to your so-called “gospels” which differ with each other on multiple events in the life of your “savior”. Case in point: the gospels give different answers from Jesus to the high priest’s question. There is a contradiction, pure and simple.

        “We could add the known addition of apocryphal sources used in the Koran. Do you accept those same literary conclusions? Didn’t think so. As I said, it’s hypocritical. You adopt one set of assumptions for the bible and in the same breath disregard them for the Koran.”

        Bwhahaha, another typical response! Do you have any new arguments against the Quran? Just blindly copying idiotic arguments from Google doesn’t prove anything. The Quran refers to stories about the prophets that were circulating among the Arabs, Jews and Christians. On what basis do you say they are “apocryphal”? See? Your entire premise is a non-sequitur. You assume those stories must be unreliable because they are not in your Bible. But who says that if it’s in the Bible, then it’s true?

        The irony is, as I explained in the article, that apocryphal material is found in your Bible. The parable of the goats and sheep and the “son of man” is a perfect example. This motif is found only in the Gospel of Matthew! But if you look outside the Bible, you find the same motif in the “Similitudes of Enoch”.

        And that’s not even the only example. There are many others, especially in Matthew. For example, there are similarities between Matthew’s story of the “three wise men” and the historical visit of the Armenian king Tiridates to the emperor Nero. Here is how Vermes explained it:

        “It is conceivable that another relatively recent event influenced Matthew and prompted him to introduce the Magi into his narrative. This was the visit to Rome in the late 50s or early 60s AD of the Armenian king Tiridates and his courtiers, whom Pliny the Elder designates as Magi (Natural History 30:6, 16-17). This Tiridates is said to have come to Rome to worship the emperor-god Nero in the same way as Matthew’s Magi came to worship the newborn Messiah of the Jews. A further curious coincidence which may have caught Matthew’s attention is a detail noted by the Roman chronicler Cassius Dio. After Tiridates had been confirmed by Nero as king, this group of ‘Magi,’ like the ‘wise men’ of the New Testament, did not return by the same route as the one they followed coming to Rome (Roman History 63:1-7)” (Geza Vermes, The Nativity: History and Legend (London: Penguin Books, 2006), p. 112).

        “Furthermore, the only reason you have your science of Hadith , etc, is because several hundred thousand Hadith were fabricated in a few decades. Those criteria don’t rescue the Koran.”

        How so? We have multiples attestations to the Quran. We have manuscripts. We have inscriptions. We have the collective memory of millions of Muslims! Are you kidding, Cerbie? How desperate are you? By the way, did you find a 1st-century manuscript of your NT yet? Still waiting… 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Luke said he INVESTIGATED many things and he CLEARLY knows of WRITTEN material.

        if Luke was an eyewitness, why would he need to investigate ? (Did fake stories cause Luke to investigate crosstian?)

        if my job is to investigate, then clearly I know that BULLS stories have been invented and the suspects are Peter, john, Andrew , Simon……

        So using your OWN methodology, did Luke know that pals of jazzus were INVENTING stories ?

        how did Luke know which story is the real deal and which isn’t ? He doesn’t tell us his methods of verification ? Did he use that BS method ” if it is early. It must be true ” ?

        Liked by 1 person

      5. in Luke’s version , there is no evidence that jesus had PIERCED hands and pierced side. just read Luke. jesus is not POKED in Luke and it seems all 11 believed when they were in the room.since Luke said that he “investigated everything” does that mean that Luke knew that Johns poking scene and Thomas doubt was not real?

        you said FABRICATIONS CAUSED X

        I ask



      6. “We could add the known addition of apocryphal sources used in the Koran. Do you accept those same literary conclusions? Didn’t think so. As I said, it’s hypocritical. ”

        the thing is, which scholar to date has proven that the quran is DOING a verbatim rippoff of sequence, order and wording with the apocryphal?

        come on, name one.

        on the other hand, scholars have given evidence that mark is RIPPED OFF by matthew and changed by matthew. they say that even when he is at PAINS TO ALTER THE STORY IN MARK HE STILL REPRODUCES MARKAN WORDING HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA

        this is from soomro :

        Phillip Jones, particular stories can be limited to certain communities which may have a stronger interest in preserving specific stories over others. There are other first century documents that differ in content in comparison to the canonical gospels, indicating that early christians believed in a variety of different things.

        Canonicity in and of itself should not be the arbiter of whether a document is historical. There is no causal link between the two.

        Point 1 assumes the gospel writers were interested in repeating everything they heard. This really isn’t true, they had their own specific theological biases, and we already know that there were strands of Christians with beliefs different from the proto-orthodox group. Also, assuming you’re a Christian, the argument works against you because the latest gospel (john) differs in content from the earlier gospels. One could easily counter that this is evidence that John contains false stories because the earlier gospels do not contain them.

        As for point 2 – again, this really is not relevant either. We are not saying that the infancy gospel of Thomas is canonical, only that it happens to record a story that may be historical. This same story is in the Qur’an, just as the Qur’an has parallels in the canonical gospels; we believe these parallels are indicative of an authentic moment of historical preservation

        sharif :

        If my memory serves me correct, the only parallel between the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Quran is the incident of Jesus fashioning live birds from clay. However, the context and portrayal is completely different in the two texts, which strongly suggests against direct intertextuality. It is most likely that the Quran is drawing on an oral tradition.

        agin :

        Here is a slightly different approach from Mustafa Aykol’s book The Islamic Jesus, highlighting a plausible Jewish Christian context to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas:

        This long story has some differences from the Qur’anic story of the clay birds: First, when you read the Qur’an, you can get the impression that creating clay birds was the work of an adult Jesus, but the IGT narrates it as the work of the child Jesus. Second, the Qur’an speaks of Jesus creating a “bird”—although some exegetes argued that this could be read as plural—whereas the IGT speaks of Jesus creating “twelve sparrows.” Third, in the Qur’an, Jesus breathes into the clay birds to give them life, but in the IGT he just claps his hands and cries to them. And fourth, as if to underline Islam’s nuanced theological difference from Christianity, the Qur’an stresses that Jesus performed this miracle “by God’s permission,” whereas the IGT does not see the need to make that point.24
        Yet, such differences aside, the parallel between the Qur’an and the IGT with regard to this particular story is unmistakable and striking.25 This parallel, therefore, has raised the question of how this clay birds story might have made its way into the Qur’an.
        As in other parallels between the Qur’an and preexisting Christian (or Jewish) texts, one can have three different approaches to this question: The first is to wonder and investigate how the Qur’an might have “borrowed” from earlier sources, as non-Muslim critics would typically do. The second is to assume that the Qur’an is divinely revealed, as Muslims would do, and then to see the textual parallels as the Qur’an’s confirmation, or correction, of certain themes in preexisting traditions. A third approach, which is theologically neutral, is to accept that since the Qur’an was “in dialogue” with the traditions present at its time and milieu, it naturally referred to them, no matter how one explains the Qur’an’s origin.
        Whichever of these approaches one may take, it still is interesting to explore the transmitters of the Christian texts with which the Qur’an seems to be “in dialogue.” It is interesting, for example, to explore which particular strain of Christianity was the transmitter of the IGT.
        In academia, the common answer to this question has been found in Gnosticism—the “heretical” movement within second-century Christianity that focused on a more esoteric reading of the Jesus message. Yet according to Andries van Aarde, professor of theology at the University of Pretoria, the Gnostic tendency can be found in only one of the manuscripts of the IGT, of which there are many. Meanwhile the more authentic manuscript, found in the collection of Codex Sinaiticus, he argues, reflects a different theology: the theology of the early Ebionites—our usual suspects.26 According to Van Arde, this Jewish Christian trace is detectable at the very beginning of the IGT. The author identifies himself as “I, Thomas the Israelite,” who appeals to “all the brothers living amidst the heathen.” Then throughout the text, three themes stand out: “Jesus’ obedience to the law, the restriction of salvation to Israel, and Jesus’ close and positive relation with his biological family.27
        It also interesting that James, the brother of Jesus, shows up in the IGT. The little James, as the story goes, is sent out by his father Joseph to collect wood for the fire. The young child Jesus follows his younger brother and, when the latter is bitten by a viper, saves him from death by breathing on the bite and healing the wound.28 In a deeply religious context where every event was seen as theologically meaningful, this strong bond the IGT presents between Jesus and James could be meaningful, too.
        In summary, we can safely assume a parallel between the Qur’an and the IGT, as seen in the clay birds story. Moreover, we can reason that the IGT was a text that reflected Jewish Christian themes, and therefore fits into our quest for the theological precursors of Islam.

        more :

        Historians, at least modern ones in general, do not profess to know precisely now the process works. Some stories are left out and some are not left out. It happens all the time. Many modern historical Jesus scholars, such as Bauckham, Keith and McIver, for example, make extensive use of memory research theories and the results from countless memory experiments conducted over the past few decades. What is observed again and again is that stories – details/accounts which did really transpire – cease to be in circulation in the earliest stages of recall and are out of circulation either almost immediately or within a few days/weeks after the moment of their occurrence (transience). See the discussion in Allison’s introductory chapter in “Constructing Jesus.” In short, it is just a fact, which has been proven in experiments, that actual occurrences and details do cease to be passed on, that most memory loss occurs at the earliest stage, with memory loss decreasing thereafter.

        Consider this example. GJohn has many unique stories. Does this mean that they’re all “made up” in all their details because they’re absent in the synoptic gospels? Not necessarily! We may not know why they’re absent in the earliest sources, but that’s no proof by itself that they’re all made up in every details. Perhaps some details are indeed historically plausible, though now we may not be able to show this.

        2. No scholar takes infancy Thomas seriously.

        I believe this is little different from the situation between the synoptics and GJohn. The latter is barely taken seriously by historians as a historical source for jesus. It is notably different from the earliest sources. Nonetheless, that does not mean that it is “worthless” in toto and the same holds true for Infancy Thomas (historically, we cannot say that no tiny detail therein cannot go back to an earlier stage), even though in both cases we lack the ability to very confidently separate the inauthentic from the unauthentic. Can the latter contain no iota of historical nugget, one that was used in a distorted form? This cannot be discounted historically. Now the elements you note are totally absent in the Qur’an. The Qur’an’s portrayal of Jesus is radically different from the one in IThomas. The only agreement is on a tiny point: a miracle account. Yet even here, there are differences in the details of this miracle. So, we may say, the Quran only agrees with a tiny minuscule nugget in IThomas, yet differs from its details even here, while wholesale rejecting its presentation of Jesus (as it stands in sharp contrast to the Quranic portrayal).

        Liked by 1 person

      7. “I guess you haven’t caught up. There is actually a swing at on the moment on accepting the Historicity of GJohn. But that’s what academia does. It shifts and moves. Which is why muhammadan reliance on older liberal scholarship is so pathetic. ”

        LOL, a typical response by the dog of hell! Criticize “liberal scholarship”, and make vague claims about the “historicity of GJohn”.

        What “academics” are saying that John is reliable? Let me guess…they’re Christian scholars, right? Which is why Paulinian/crosstian reliance on “conservative scholarship” is so pathetic. LOL!!

        Liked by 1 person

      8. Brother John, you mustn’t be offended by Cerbie. He does what any typical dog of hell will do: bark like a mad dog. But you mustn’t blame him. He is just lashing out due to desperation. He is seeing his religion dying a slow death. He is seeing his “Bible” being torn to pieces by scholarship and exposed as a fraudulent book. He hasn’t yet caught up to the facts. He is still living in his fantasy world. Give it time. Maybe, when he is a little older and wiser, he will come to accept the inconvenient truth about his Bible.


  3. Perhaps Jesus had muhammadans like you in mind when he said,

    “So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
    John 20:25,27-29 –,27-29&version=NIV

    What does this CRAP from your CRAP bible do ? your bible refutes this crap

    your god is a SHAPE shifter?

    WHY would thomas need to POKE your god when he saw jesus perform ALL the miracles in the past? why does he want to finger your god?

    “i will not believe”

    so did he believe that jesus was really doing miracles before he came back to life?
    you made each pal of jesus in the story a CROSStian.

    so yhwh was walking around WITH holes and bruises ? that bulshit didn’t make it in mark, luke and matthew, your god was UNRECOGNISED AND luke DOESN’T even show that jesus had PIERCED hands , feet and side.

    kristian IDOLATRY was getting UPDATED every time. the evidence was so CRAP, that the last author had to have disciples FINGER your god.


    the jewish disciples knew that god DOES NOT die or come back to life, because their God was the SELF STANDING IMMORTAL god and here you PORTRAY the disciples as IDOLATERS who NEED EVIDENCE THAT god came back to LIFE? WTF is this?????


    1. did you know that the word “enthusiasm” has the idea of a god filling you and giving you FEELINGS ?
      now ot clearly warns jews about ppl who give ou feelings to worship CREATED beings like jesus and heavenly bodies , angels….

      notice thomas felt his god and if balliz interpretation of the verse is correct, his FEELINGS drove him to worship a WOUNDED pagan god in the flesh?

      think about it.

      but side notice on thomas :

      “Doubting Thomas.”

      Here was a guy who had traveled with Jesus for one (or three) years. According to the apologist who holds to the historicity of the Gospels, Thomas had seen Jesus walk on water, feed 1,000’s with some scraps of food. Watched blind people gain sight, lame walk, deaf hear. Even performed miracles himself!

      Has seen Jesus raise people from the dead and heard more teachings from Jesus than any other person alive (with the possible exceptions of Peter, James and John.) This fellow is an insider.

      He is informed by his friends, “We have seen Jesus post-Resurrection!” (Argument 5 above is a bit deceiving; it should more accurately state, “Disciples reported having experiences they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.”)

      He has almost immediate knowledge regarding the claims Jesus was raised. (I say “almost” because John records 8 days between the first two appearances, so this would be the greatest extent of time. Luke records Thomas heard on Sunday, but this contradicts John. Take your pick: 1-8 days.)

      He was in Jerusalem, he had the opportunity to inspect the empty tomb right away. He had access–friendly access—to all the disciples, Jesus’ family. Everything.

      Can you possibly imagine a witness closer to the scene with a more suitable circumstance to investigate the claims being made about a resurrected Jesus?

      And he wasn’t convinced.

      He wasn’t convinced by the crucifixion, the empty tomb, the message, the transformation of his friends, the claims of his friends, or his proximity to the scene of the event.

      Can I be any clearer? Doubting Thomas–who was far better equipped than any of us to investigate and confirm–was not convinced by the minimal facts!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Paulus

        “They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.“

        Oh, look at that. Refuted in a single verse from the very same chapter! You muhammadans are very silly


      2. So what was jebus doing ? how many times in the gospels did he tell them that scripture predicted his suicide and return to life ? So how come they didnt understand u pathetic crosstian?


      3. LOL, oh you Paulinians are soooo stupid!

        What does this prove? Nothing!!! All it proves is that you dullards were fabricating stories to deceive people into worshiping your mangod!

        Tell me Cerbie, why would any rational person rely on a book which clearly fabricated so many stories? If chapter 9 of John’s gospels contains a fabrication about Thomas, as brother John pointed out, then who in their right mind would care what it says elsewhere in that chapter, or even in the entire book? Why would anyone trust such a book? That’s your problem. Your Bible has trust issues.


  4. John Stewart

    @ Paulus
    To begin what Christian Apocrypha is used for sourcing the Qur’an? There have been no established links and is mostly based on assumptions from Noeldoke, Geiger or Tisdall (which pretty much any modern scholar rejects due to their extreme bias and really reaching for sources).

    Next, the whole Qur’an was not revealed all at once in a cave. Literally “a” portion of “a” chapter was revealed in a cave. And even then, we have the story coming from the Prophet’s(saw) wife who told it to her about what happened. See how we can link ourselves back to the Prophet(saw)? Even if you would like to be difficult here our eyewitness accounts of revelation or miracles:

    …So Allah revealed to His Messenger (ﷺ) – while his thigh was against MY thigh – and it became so heavy that I was worried it was about to fracture MY thigh. Then he was relieved of it, so Allah had revealed to him: Except those who are disabled.” (Tirmidhi Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3033)
    … Thereupon ‘Umar said: I know the day on which it was revealed and the hour when it was revealed and where Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) had been when it was revealed. It was revealed on the night of Friday and we were in ‘Arafat with Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) at that time. (Sahih Muslim 3017 b: Book 43, Hadith 7154)

    And there are more but the point’s made. Imagine if you had “a” single writing produced by a disciple the Christian world would be in an uproar.

    And yes people are liars, it just didn’t take us until the 1700s to start going: “You know what… where did you get this story from?” This is why something like some scraps found in a garbage dump(i.e. some of the dead sea scrolls) doesn’t have us going “Hallelujah! We found the real Bible!” If you would like to argue about sources then let’s look at Luke’s sources and compare the two. Care to list them for me? Or how about the author of John would you care to tell me a little about him?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Paulus

      You proved my point- you won’t accept the same scholarly assumptions applied to the Koran, yet you readily appeal to them against the bible. Why the hypocrisy.

      We could certainly talk about sources. But would it change your mind? Would you accept apostolic polity in listing the witnesses to the gospels? Or the succeeding bishops and leaders? Would you accept that it’s entirely impossible to fabricate biblical narrative when the same sources are found across geographical boundaries in different languages but still attest to the same thing? Which is why over 99% of variations are insignificant. And why we know why those variants are. No, you wouldn’t.

      And yet you insist I accept the Hadith menthodology of transmission to defend the premise that Gabriel appeared to Muhammad in a cave? Where are the multiple witnesses to the event, not just multiple Hadith? You don’t have them and so by Britney’s logic above, I have every right to reject the entire Koran.

      You see, Britney likes to pretend that Christians *deflect*, but what the poor pop star won’t admit is that is Christians are asking you to be consistent. But you can’t be, because then you have no basis for your dawah or christophobia. In a few short comments I’ve exposed it on you and the others above.

      Islam basically feeds of attacking Christians and Jews. So I have zero hope of Muslims becoming consistent. I see this all the time.



      1. ” Would you accept apostolic polity in listing the witnesses to the gospels? Or the succeeding bishops and leaders? Would you accept that it’s entirely impossible to fabricate biblical narrative when the same sources are found across geographical boundaries in different languages but still attest to the same thing? Which is why over 99% of variations are insignificant. And why we know why those variants are. No, you wouldn’t.”

        quote :

        Roughly 25 years after Emperor Constantine’s conversion, Eusebius wrote that the cross had appeared to Constantine in the sky in front of his entire army! But we know this is a myth because we have a report from Lactantius, an adviser to Constantine, who wrote only three years after the conversion, says only that Constantine had a dream about the cross the night before the battle! Eusebius’ mass vision story is a complete myth. Now think about: Eusebius wrote 25 years after Constantine’s vision, Paul wrote about 25 years after the alleged resurrection of Jesus, and most scholars agree that the appearance to the 500 is Paul’s addition to the list (thus it does not date back to within 3 years of Jesus’ death as other parts of the creed may), so it isn’t reliable evidence of anything. The Constantine example also completely destroys Strobel’s assertions that it takes two generations or more for legends to grow up. Not so: in 25 years you can turn a dream into a mass vision.

        end quote

        so if we did not have REPORT from lactantius and our only source was eusibius and his claim was FOUND “ACROSS geographical boundaries in different languages” then this proves that constantine + army saw the cross?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Hahahaha, so still no response to the trust issues with your Bible? You whine about “consistency”, but you and I both know that it’s the Christians who are inconsistent. You idiots apply standards for the Quran that you do not for the Bible. I see this all the time.

        Your ludicrous defense of the Bible reflects this inconsistency. You simply dismiss the “variants” as “insignificant”, but if there were such variants in the Quran, you would never stop singing about it. The fact is that the variants that you so quickly want to dismiss are a huge problem. What they show is that Christians were inventing tall tales. It’s the same with all mythology. There are variants. So, for example, when your “savior” was being questioned by the high priest (an incident which is most probably fake anyway), his response to the high priest’s question is different in Mark from Matthew and Luke. So again, I ask. What did Jesus really say to the high priest?

        This is not simply an “insignificant” variant. This strikes at the core of the Bible’s reliability. If Mark has say something different from Matthew/Luke, they both cannot be right. So, there is something fishy going on. Either Mark was relying on a different source, or Matthew/Luke changed what Mark had said.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. John Stewart

    All I asked was for Luke’s sources. WhatI would like is a chain of people going back to Jesus(as). Let’s start with a basic example, Origen heard from “Eric” his teacher that the Apostle Peter said that Jesus(as) said: “….” Can you do that? From there I would like a brief bio of everyone in the chain.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Paulus

      Why would I apply muhammadan arab methodology to Ancient Greek bio?

      Find me a recognised Greek historian who adopts such an approach and I’ll happily oblige.

      Why do you find it so hard to be consistent?

      And I’m still waiting for the second witness in the cave. If you can’t provide that, then by muhammad standards above I can reject the entire Koran


  6. Paulus

    “his response to the high priest’s question is different in Mark from Matthew and Luke“

    Qur’an 25:54. It is He Who has Created man from water:

    Qur’an 6:2 (Also 7:12) 2. He it is Who created You from clay

    Qur’an 96:1. Proclaim (or Read) In the Name Of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- 2. Created man out of A (mere) clot Of
    congealed blood

    Let’s see if the muhammadan will harmonise these seeming contradictions and whether he then disallows Christians the same courtesy.


    1. everyone , the pagan man /creature/ wounded pagan god worshipper is COMPARING the ayats to the FOLLOWING :

      In Matthew, Mary doesn’t leave the tomb until she is made perfectly well aware of what happened to the body of Jesus:

      NAU Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.
      2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.
      3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.
      4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men.
      5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.
      6 “He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.
      7 “Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”
      8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. (Matt. 28:1-8 NAU)

      But in John, Mary is at the tomb, then she runs and complains to Peter and John that she doesn’t know what happened to Jesus’ body:

      NAU John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.
      2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” (Jn. 20:1-2 NAU)

      Apologists dismiss this by speculating either a) Mary in Matthew split off from the group of other women before they got to the tomb, wasn’t there to recieve the angelic report, and John is talking about Mary after she comes back from the detour having missed the show, or b) Mary was told what happened to Jesus’ body along with the other women, but because of what’s written in John, apparently the truth just hadn’t “hit” her just yet (!?)

      Here’s how you stomp the guts out of these speculations and force inerrancy to reveal its ugly head:

      All patristic sources and most modern Christian scholars agree that John was written later than the other 3 canonical gospels.

      If then you read Matthew’s account the way it was originally intended (i.e., by itself, without comparing it to other accounts), you discern not the slightest justification for supposing Mary split off from the group of women before they got to the tomb.

      Concerning Gleason Archer’s “the truth just hadn’t hit her just yet” to explain her ignorance in John, again, if you read Matthew 28:7-8 as it was orignally intended to be read (without worrying about comparing it to or reconciling it with some other account), the statement in v. 8 would be taken by you to mean that Mary, after learning what happened to the body, left with the other women and told the men the same thing the angel said.

      If you read Matthew objectively as it was originally intended by its author, you get not the slightest justification to think Mary either departed from the group before they hear the angel, nor that she experienced a failure of comprehension between the angelic announcement and her reporting to the other disciples.


      now let me ask, HOW ARE YOU COMPARING QURAN VERSES to the developing stories in john and matthew?

      have u no shame???

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Paulus

        THis muhammadan clearly will try to harmonise the Quran but is unwilling to let Christians do the same.

        My point is proven.

        Let’s see how the other two go…


      2. This crosstian is still trying to deflect while avoiding the problems in his Bible.

        My point is proven.

        Let’s see if he gets the courage to answer my question: how did Jesus respond to the high priest?


      3. are you saying that the DIFFERENT make up of human being and POINTING IT out to the Listeners OF THE quran is like the story where mary goes to the tomb with the other mary, sees the angel role away the stone, gets invited to look in, RUNS off, crashes into jesus and recognises him


        the story where mary goes to tomb, sees the tomb open, runs off to peter to tell him the body has been MOVED, comes back, CRIES like a baby and EVEN AFTER speaking to jesus, SHE STILL DOES NOT RECOGNISE him and asks him WHERE have THEY moved his body

        jesus in mark, when he is under trial, is CLEARLY not chatty. he is a forsaken person who has been left for getting demolished by the pagans, not only has god FORSAKEN him but his pals too.

        since john is written late, your job is to PROVE that the ayats you QUOTED were written decades apart from each other

        your job is also to show why the arabs at that time wouldn’t have known that discussing parts of SOMETHING (human, water, animals…) would be CONTRADICTORY ….


      4. Paulus

        I’d simply harmonise the accounts, much like how you seem to think you are made of clay lol 😂😂

        But because you worship muhammad, you won’t be consistent allow Christians that option.


      5. LOL, so still no response? What are you afraid of, Cerbie? Why won’t you tell me what your savior said to the high priest?

        And I see you moving the goalpost, as usual. So, you got humiliated on your first deflection, and now you nitpick about “science”? Are you sure that you, a Bible thumper, want to bring science into the debate? 😉 You can find like a dozen scientific errors in the first couple of chapters of Genesis! Hahahahaha! Take a look at my article on this subject, if you dare!


    2. “his response to the high priest’s question is different in Mark from Matthew and Luke“

      They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate. 2 Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” He answered him, “You say so.” 3 Then the chief priests accused him of many things. 4 Pilate asked him again, “Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you.” 5 But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed.

      “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”

      no wonder mark did not have a chatty jesus.


      “All patristic sources and most modern Christian scholars agree that John was written later than the other 3 canonical gospels.”

      compare to :

      Then Pilate entered the headquarters[c] again, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?” 35 Pilate replied, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” 37 Pilate asked him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate asked him, “What is truth?”

      Liked by 1 person

    3. So no response, just another deflection. Why am I not surprised? Hahahahaha!

      It’s actually very easy to answer your deflection. The short answer is that humans are created of from all three components. Water and clay were used to create Adam (pbuh), and since the entire human race came from Adam, all humans are also created from water and clay. The “clot” refers to the stages of development. It starts with a “nutfah” and progresses to a clot. All of these things are thus components of mankind’s creation.

      Now be a dear and answer my question, okay sweetie? Fill in the dialogue below to indicate what Jesus actually said to the high priest:

      High Priest: Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?



  7. i just want to say that the word “investigate” in luke means that luke was REALLY no investigator. he just SWALLOWED the stories hook, line and sinker. he had absolutely no methodology, the greek for “investigate” simply means to follow and ACCEPT as is. there was no FACT checking in luke the guy was no INVESTIGATOR at all


  8. John Stewart

    @ Paulus
    You asked for consistency and this is as basic as it gets in hadith methodology. You want me to base my entire beliefs on authors you have no idea are. Do you see the issue here? Were they liars, heretics, bad memory who knows. This is the issue of the Bible. The argument “Well multiple areas are saying the same thing.” doesn’t matter if they ALL learned from one corrupted source. Then you have to compound the issue that almost everyone during Jesus’s(as) time was illiterate.

    Also p.s. that was SUPER racist.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Paulus


      Anonymity does not mean unreliable. That is SUPER fallacious.

      Besides, if you Track the apostolic tradition from the Fathers, then we certainly do know who the gospel authors are. And we find the accepted canon across geographical and language barriers very early on. It is simply impossible to corrupt an entire corpus on that scale. Which is why it is very easy for scholars to recognise any transmission errors or variants.

      Your comment again reflects your liberal argument adoption. If I applied the same to the Koran and Hadith, then we’d be rejecting those as well. You’re not being consistent. Please apply Greek historical standards to the Greek texts, not later arab traditions.


      1. John Stewart

        @ Paulus
        Uhh… yea it does. It is not fallacious to ask for sources.

        By this reasoning, almost ALL Christian Apocrypha is back on the table. And yes you can corrupt a corpus on that scale very easily especially since theirs no chain are you serious? All it literally takes is one forgery (which we know their was plenty of as the Bible itself admits) to survive the 1st codex(and even then that’s not necessarily still reliable if you don’t know who codified). There is an entire chapter (John 7:53-8:11) and a paragraph (Mark 16:9-20) forged from the 3rd and 4th century forward. The only reason why there aren’t major discrepancies between the text 9th century forward is that copying started to become more standardized. Next, there’s a difference of opinion among NT scholars if they can even bring back the original NT let alone the oral tradition era.

        And yes I’m being very consistent you can do both things I just said with Quran and hadith. Greek “historical standards” is fallacious because you’re assuming the Greeks were consistent with their methodology. If I was to apply this standard then much Greek mythology should be considered historically reliable to you, like Lamia for example.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Paulus

        John, your logic is letting you down.

        I personally don’t believe they are anonymous. I was merely pointing out that your logic is flawed. One of the key criteria for inclusion in the canon is apostolic authority as noted in the Father’s writings. As usual, you are ignoring the Christian tradition and opting straight for liberal argumentation.

        Why would I use the isnaad systwm when I have the traditions of the Greek and Latin fathers?

        Besides, the isnaad system is flawed and circular


  9. John Stewart

    As a last note so you can completly understand me. I’m not even asking for witnesses to events. At this point, I’m asking for the chain to said event. For example, in Matt 4 Jesus(as) is alone in the wilderness and Satan comes to test him. I am NOT arguing it should be thrown out because no one saw it. What I’m arguing is HOW did the story get relayed back because obviously, it’s just Jesus(as) there. What I would like is a chain as such: Jesus(as) told this story to the apostle John. John then told it to his student “Bob”. Bob then told this story Matthew who recorded it. This isn’t some “new-fangled “Arab” science”. It’s common sense, that I would list my sources for others to check after me.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “. It is simply impossible to corrupt an entire corpus on that scale. Which is why it is very easy for scholars to recognise any transmission errors or variants.”






  10. “. It is simply impossible to corrupt an entire corpus on that scale. Which is why it is very easy for scholars to recognise any transmission errors or variants.”

    that is not true, paul knows that there are different christs being preached and you don’t even know how SINCERE AND TRUSTWORTHY were the TRANSMITTERS who heard the desiples .

    QUOTE :

    Paul also makes reference to “other gospels,” and “other Christs” which shows that even in the 50’s, the Jerusalem church already had no control over what was being taught.

    your BS , your crosstian BS is not taking into co nsideration that there WAS NO CONTROL and why other krists were popping in and out of existence was BECAUSE OF STORY TELLING AND NO FACT CHECKING


      1. did sunni/shia schism ever go to the level where there were “different qurans”
        “different muhammads” like paul says “different gospels” “different krists”

        Liked by 1 person

      1. idiot, john never says that the beloved disciple wrote john. john never says who the “we” is and who the “he” is

        you keep on saying “muhammadan” yet it is you who would feel a flesh god and ID him as your “god and saviour”

        so imagine you were there feeling your NAKED saviour, it is you who would be driven to worship the flesh because of what you felt in your heart and in your touch.

        it is the ignatius who ID’S the beloved disciple BASED on what proof ? hahaha

        is it proof like the following :

        quote :

        This passage from Papias is often cited in order to show that he could trace a direct lineage to what the apostles of Jesus themselves were saying, that even though he was not himself an eyewitness (or rather, earwitness) to what the apostles said, he was as close to an earwitness as we could possibly hope for. Some scholars have somewhat incautiously maintained that Papias actually knew some of Jesus’ own disciples. But that’s not at all what this passage says.

        What it says is that Papias would on occasion speak with people who were “companions” of the “elders.” These “elders” were followers of the “apostles.” Work this out carefully. Papias is not claiming to have heard what he learned from Jesus or the apostles themselves. Or from the followers of the apostles. He has talked to those who were companions of the followers (“elders”) of the apostles. In other words, Papias has gotten his traditions about Jesus fourth-hand, not first or second hand.

        The sequence goes like this Jesus (the figure in question) → apostles → elders → companions of the elders → Papias → us. When we listen to Papias, we do not have access directly to Jesus or his apostles. We’re getting it fifth-hand.

        A lot can happen to traditions that exchange hands. As I will be arguing in a future book (the next one I’ll be writing, gods willing), eyewitness reports cannot be relied on to give us accurate information about something that happened. If we could always trust eyewitnesses to get something right, then we would have no need for a legal system. If a crime was committed, and someone saw it, we would simply ask them what they saw and convict the criminal accordingly. What need of a trial? We have an eyewitness!

        END QUOTE

        Liked by 1 person

      2. man /creature worshipping pagan SCUM, USE THE METHODS FROM THE GOSPEL OF JOHN TO IDENTIFY THE BELOVED .

        and this is something for you :

        if this disciple really did the things attributed to him in the fourth canonical gospel, then the other evangelists (or let us say mainly Mark) did some work to write him out of things? For example, Mark says that all of Jesus’ followers fled, and then has only women at the cross; John says that there were women at the cross, but then adds that this beloved disciple, a man (to judge by his pronouns), was also there (this is what I meant by him appearing out of nowhere; the list is given, which does not include him, and then… there he is). And Mark manages to get Peter into position for his denials without anybody’s help. And some manuscripts of Luke have Peter running to the tomb, no mention of another disciple. Would you agree that Mark et alii have seemingly completely ignored this disciple, even though he was, by this account, Jesus’ favorite?

        It is Luke 24.12, one of the so-called Western noninterpolations. (It is present in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus, but not in Bezae or Washingtonianus.)

        END QUOTE

        oh know, some manuscripts of LUKE don’t have someone ACCOMPANYING PETER BACK TO THE TOMB .

        and MARK says they ALL left him for getting pummelled .

        kristians LIED TO you about the beloved .

        they LIED !


      3. crosstian :

        Why would I use the isnaad systwm when I have the traditions of the Greek and Latin fathers?

        hahahah ho hoh ho hahahah ho ho ho hahahahah kekekekeekekekekekkeek

        QUOTE :

        “And when a gospel was written, presumably the community it was written in knew who wrote it. And when it was copied to be shared with other communities, how many links in the chain of transmission before Ignatius or Papias got a copy? One? Two? Zero? (ie sent direct from the source community to Antioch where Ignatius was or would be?). These people knew each other, and traveled, as they did in Paul’s time. Papias clearly was inquisitive, ”

        But this kind of model fits very poorly with the proliferation of pseduepigraphical Christian literature in the first and second century. Bart Ehrman notes that “arguably the most distinctive feature of the early Christian literature is the degree to which it was forged.” [1] Consider for example Eusebius’ discussion of Serapion’s acceptance of the Gospel of Peter (H.E. 4.12.2). Serapion accepted the gospel because it was written by Peter, and only later rejected it, not because of it’s questionable authorship but instead because of it’s heretical teachings. Literary pseudepigrapha was widespread in first century Judaism (cf. 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, etc.). Literary pseudepigrapha was widespread in first and second century Christianity (as argued above).

        I think one model that makes reasonable sense of this phenomena is that early doctrinal and power disputes within the church led to the use of weaponized forgery and counterforgery. In the context of a diverse early church (we have good evidence of this) spread out over large distances without good methods of documentary verification pseudepigraphy could thrive. The forgers knew what they were doing; the deceived were indeed deceived (but sometimes perhaps with some wishful thinking on their part.) Pseudepigrapha flourished in first century Judaism with a similar social environment but a different set of theological arguments. For a more complete argument, cf. Dr. Ehrmans’ book, Forgery and Counterforgery.

        haahahahah hahaahhahaha hahahaha


      4. “Why would I use the isnaad systwm when I have the traditions of the Greek and Latin fathers?”

        hahahahaha hahaahah hahahahahaahahhahahaha


        Christians cherry-pick what they want out of the early Church fathers, cite it as historically correct within the cloak of “tradition,” and then ignore those writings counter to their position.

        They embrace Papias when it comes to authorship of Mark and Matthew; ignore and abandon him when it comes to Judas’ death, Jesus statements, or the Gospel of Hebrews because he becomes inconvenient. Embrace Acts of Peter regarding how Peter died; ignore Acts of Peter why Peter died. Same with Acts of Paul. Discard Gospel of Peter as “too fanciful;” embrace Gospel of Matthew as historical fact. Point out Ignatius’ use of the star phenomenon at Jesus’ birth; ignore it is nothing like the account of Matthew.

        Write off the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, hold as historical the petulant Jesus child of Luke 2. Point out 1 Clement’s use of Jesus’ saying; ignore that pesky phoenix. The list goes on and on and on.

        Perhaps more relevant to our present topic, utilize Clement of Alexandria for the gospel order; disregard Clement’s claim Cephas and Peter were two separate people.

        As these discussions go, the Christians’ method becomes apparent—if it was written within the 1st or 2nd Century AND it helps the Christian’s immediate argument—then consider it “historical.” If it does not, either ignore it, or discard it for being “too late” or “legendary.”

        Why the first 100 years? (“100 years” from what?) Why such an arbitrary number? Why not 80? Or 120? Frankly, your article relies heavily on Eusebius, who is outside the 100 years, so clearly 100 is not a bright-line cut-off.

        END QUOTE

        ha hah hahahahah LOL

        Liked by 1 person

      5. why did licona struggle like a MOUSE when ehrman SMOTHERED him on EVIDENCE that john is composed by john ?

        why was liconas answer based on “probably”

        why he said OUTRIGHT he has NO EVIDENCE from john that beloved d wrote john ?

        T 23:19

        WHY did licona JUMP to plutark like a SHAMELESS crosstian when he is there to provide evidence that beloved john wrote john ? ehrman SLAPPED him on this aswell, he said even ancient biographers GET interrogated .


        Liked by 1 person

      6. John Stewart

        Okay, an interesting theory let’s test it I have 4 major reasons to believe John didn’t write this:

        1. No claims in the entire book to be authored by John
        Nope, not once.

        2. The use of third person instead of first person
        If I’m telling a story to my wife, for example, about my day at work I go: “Well I went to the office, Jim was giving me a rough time over the Henderson account.” I don’t go: “And John walked in. Jim his nemesis of 3 years berated him over the Henderson account.”

        The one whom “Jesus loves” is referred to in the third person so the author obviously can’t be John:
        One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. (John 13:23) It should read like:
        “I was the one who Jesus loved. While I was reclining next to him…”

        3. John is said to be illiterate :
        Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned (agrammatos) and ignorant (idiōtēs) men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. (Acts 4:13)
        from Strong’s Bible Dictionary:
        Agrammatos – illiterate, without learning.
        Idiōtēs – an unlearned, illiterate, man as opposed to the learned and educated: one who is unskilled in any art.

        Even if for the sake of argument he learns to read and write (which is unlikely but still possible). Why would he compile his narrative in Greek instead of Aramaic his mother tongue? This same disciple is the author of the Gospel of John, a text that is written in highly eloquent Greek (and tackles complex theological issues such as the nature of the Logos, is unreasonable.

        4. Multiple authorship throughout the text
        There are very strange switches throughout John for example, Chapter 20’s ending:
        “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” [John 20:30-31]

        These last verses of chapter 20 seem to wrap up the Gospel. In the next chapter another miracle is told (John 21:4-6).

        So, chapter 21 is odd. Toward the end of it two verses seem to close the Gospel again:

        “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” [John 21:24-25]

        Compare those verses with the closing verses of the previous chapter – the Gospel effectively has two endings, which are both very similar. Which makes one of them redundant.Also note the use of the third person usage again: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. WE know that his testimony is true.”

        This shows the author didn’t write this particular statement. The word “we” comes into play, which indicates that the author is no longer one person.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. Paulus

        “idiot, john never says that the beloved disciple wrote john“

        “Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”)… This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
        John 21:20,24 –,24&version=NIV

        Oh dear little muhammadan. Humiliated again. Better go back to your madrassa and learn how to read


      8. Paulus


        Your objections 1 and 2 are proven wrong by my citation above and evidence below from history. Objection 4 could equally and much more forcefully be applied to the Koran, since it has zero chronological order. If chap 21 is evidence of multiple authors, I sure hope you will be consistent and apply the same logic to the Koran? Will you?

        Objection 3 is easily refuted. Irenaeus, certainly thought John wrote GJohn. This historic Bishop of Lugdunum, was the student of Polycarp and Ignatius (two men who were taught directly by the Apostle John). Besides, one could even suggest a scribe was used, as was common in that era.

        So all in all, you’ve been completely refuted.


      9. ““Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”)… This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
        John 21:20,24 –,24&version=NIV

        Oh dear little muhammadan. Humiliated again. Better go back to your madrassa and learn how to read”

        HAHAHAHA, oh the irony!! Cerbie is telling others to learn how to read! Hmm, let’s see what it really says:

        ” This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.”

        So is John referring to himself? He’s testifying to his OWN trustworthiness? But why not just say “I, John, wrote these things down. My testimony is true?” As it stands, you have yet to refute brother John Stewart’s excellent points. Try again. Maybe go back to Jesus Camp and learn how to properly quote your Bible. LOL!!!


      10. Polycarp knew John? Really? What’s your evidence stupid? It’s amazing how you’re unwittingly trying to establish a chain now! But where does Polycarp say that he knew John? Christians are such funny people. They dig themselves into newer and bigger holes every time they open their mouths!


  11. John Stewart

    P.S. I saw you “lol” at man being created from dirt, you do know the Bible states humans are created from dust right?
    Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)
    By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.’ (Genesis 3:19)


    1. Paulus

      No, I was lol at Britney’s harmonisation attempt in which he claimed that Adams progeny are made from clay. Clearly that’s scientifically false.


      1. John Stewart

        First, off the verse you quoted is referring to Adam(as):
        [ Allah ] said, “What prevented you from prostrating when I commanded you?” [Satan] said, “I am better than him. You created me from fire and created him from clay.[ Allah ] said, “Descend from Paradise, for it is not for you to be arrogant therein. So get out; indeed, you are of the debased.” (7:12)

        Next, it has nothing to do with “scientifically false’ if our father Adam(as) is created from dust by extension that is our source as well. A contradiction is defined as “two things cannot exist at the same time in the same context”. I’ll first give an example of something people think is a contradiction in the Bible which is NOT. Judas’s death:
        “So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself…” (Matt 27:5)
        “With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out…” (Acts 1:18)

        These are again NOT contradictory because like the verses you quoted in the Quran we can reconcile them. Judas hung himself and then his body burst open. Now let’s look at an actual contradiction in the NT.
        “Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it…But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you” So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. (Matthew 28:5-9]
        Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon, Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him” (John 20:1-2)

        If Mary Magdalene met Jesus(as) at the tomb, as Matthew says, then why does she report that the body had been stolen according to John? In case your confused here’s a picture to better understand.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself…” (Matt 27:5)
        “With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out…” (Acts 1:18)

        we would have to force ourselves to BELIEVE that acts knows of a ROPE and matthew knows of a field which judas HIMSELF purchased.

        i guess u know that these accounts have been written decades apart from each other?
        the text ends with “judas hung himself ”
        the NATURAL assumption would be that judas DIED by hanging, you would ASSUME this had matthew been the only written gospel.

        if saddam hussain died by hanging and then 10 years after his death an account was written which said that
        “saddam fell and burst open”
        would we reconcile or would we assume that something has gone wrong in transmission ?


      3. “With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out…” (Acts 1:18)

        the natural assumption here is that the judas’ death was caused by falling meaning he was still alive as he fell. wouldnt we all think this?


      4. Paulus

        And there it is- all three Muhammadans have now harmonised the texts I quoted. And all theee muhammadans still disallow Christians the same. It only took a few comments to expose.

        As I said, inconsistency is at the heart of muhammadism.


      5. And there it is, the crosstian still avoids answering the question or providing any reasonable explanation and can only complain about Muslims. Hallelujah! Praise Jebus!!

        Once again: what did Jesus say to the high priest?


  12. John Stewart

    @ Tony
    Regardless of the likelihood ahki it can still be reconciled which doesn’t make it a contradiction. I instead used the Mary Magdeline issue of her visit to the tomb which can’t be reconciled.


    1. akhi, i have read about the mary madgalene problem, it was made famous by skeptic called farrell till. till wrote point by point responses to christians who came out with different scenarios to the mary madgalene problem.


      1. you have an email address ? i can send you pages of point by point responses which used to take place on f tills ERRANCY email disccusion list.


  13. John Stewart

    Sorry, I understand your post now. Till was refuting others on the Mary Magdeline. Well, let’s see if Paulus is going to be the one to do it.


    1. yeah, crosstians come up with hundred different how it could have been explanations even for the mary madgalene problem. hahah
      i have seen these how it could have been scenarios addressed and i even recall a crosstian saying that the verse about peter RUNNING BACK TO THE TOMB IN LUKE IS INTERPOLATED. just to help INERRANCY crosstians would have no problem admitting forgery HAHAHAHAHAHAH


      1. Shaad

        @Heathcliff, salam bro, i commented something on your “robert2016” blog it’s on moderation, please take a look…


      2. Shaad

        Walaikumsalam bro, yeah i was looking for someone to help me when i have questions on the crucifixion issue and stuff like that so i was asking for your email address…i commented on the current blog you right now so no need to post your email address, just send me a salam…


  14. John Stewart

    @ quranandbibleblog

    One last note about John. You’ll notice whenever Muslims ask Christians: “Where did Jesus(as) declare to be God?” They’ll almost exclusively quote ambiguous verses from John and VERY rarely any of the Synoptics.

    Interestingly enough it is the latest in the Christian tradition. The gospel of John, if you want to quote conservative view, was written around 90-100CE. Admittedly I was lazy and used Wikipedia (somebody can double check for me the actual dates) but it said John died in 100CE. Let’s go with the earliest view that he wrote it in 90CE. That means he was 87 years old when this was compiled. Again very strange time to decide to write a gospel as opposed to when you were younger and could remember better but whatever.

    Acts is said to have been written anywhere between AD 60 and 100 according to the blueletterbible:

    This is a SERIOUS issue if it was written later as that means John would’ve still been illiterate into his 70s and 80s which we can almost say for sure now that he didn’t write it. Even if we accept the earlier dating following Christian timelines he would be around 30 at the beginning of Jesus’s(as) ministry. 33 when he’s (as) taken up to heaven. That means we add 30 years to get to Acts timeline which means at 63 years old he is still illiterate. Christians essentially have a little over a 20-year gap for a 63 old man to learn how to read and write eloquent GREEK which realistically he would have had no reason to learn.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That is the nail in the coffin. Scholars have known this for a very long time, but the Christians just don’t want to admit the facts. It is simply impossible that John would have written the gospel that now carries his name.


      1. John Stewart

        No akhi this is the nail. The last type of reasonable argument other than “I believe because of theological beliefs” is John dictated to somebody. Of course, the first basic question is who? Were they any good as scribes? Did they change it afterward? Unknown. But even then it still doesn’t solve the use of the 3rd person narrative or multiple authorship points I mentioned above. Finally, there is an issue with dictation but I’ll let Ehrman explain:

        Liked by 1 person

  15. Pingback: Did the apostle John write the “Gospel of John? Here are five reasons why the answer is “no”. – The Quran and Bible Blog

  16. Pingback: Revisiting the scientific errors in the Bible – Christian apologist Cerbie digs himself into a bigger hole – The Quran and Bible Blog

  17. John Stewart

    @ Paulus
    Uhhh.who hasn’t allowed you to harmonize the account? I even harmonized a common objection in the NT regarding Judas death to show what is a proper contradiction is.

    Next, you haven’t refuted anything down the line on your points:
    You quoted:
    “Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”)… This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. John 21:20,2

    This is an evidence against you not for you. Remember if John is the person telling the story the story should read like this;
    “Peter and “I” were following Jesus…

    Even in your citation, the author of John cuts into the narrative (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”). And again please note “WE know his testimony is true” aka it is a group of people claiming to have heard something from John. So 1 and 2 still stand.

    I mentioned this already and said this solve this issue but it doesn’t stop point 1 and 2. Also, as stated you still don’t know who wrote said writing that John was supposed to have dictated.

    Qur’an and its stories
    One according to logic this is a Tu quoque fallacy. It doesn’t disprove my point we would just both have an issue with the authorship (you do this fallacy a lot). Two the Qur’an is a completely different literary style than the gospels. The Qur’an’s chapters are usually responses to various issues or situations. It then responds with a part of a story from the past to show the believers that similar situations have occurred before. John is a compilation of the life of Jesus(as) in chronological order. A more accurate analogy would be with a writing of the bio of Muhammad(saw) and Jesus(as). And there is never abrupt stops and repeating like I mentioned above. So 4 still stands.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Paulus


      A plural pronoun doesn’t disprove johanine authorship. Instead of just assuming it, prove a point. Perhaps consider how the Quran uses plural pronouns also.

      I’ve demonstrated that the author was the beloved disciple. The text makes this clear.

      Scribal anonymity was normal. The key point is apostolic authority. This is testified in the writings of the Fathers as canon criteria. I noticed you avoided this serious disruption to your polemics. I’d also challenge you to provide the details of every scribe muhammad used for the Koran for every verse. If you can’t, then your point is moot.

      There is no abrubt difference with chap 21. The narrative is still post resurrection. You haven’t even considered that the end of chap 20 and chap 21 are for emphasis. A common trait in ancient bio.

      My point in referencing the Koran is not to avoid the bible. It’s simply to make the observation that while you allow for “answers” to Koranic problems, you disallow the same for Christians. You’ve presumed to follow argumentation for the worst conclusion. Hardly fait


      1. QUOTE :
        20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

        22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

        24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

        Can someone explain what the pagan flesh worshipping/human worshipping crosstians point was?
        all is see here is X (we) got stuff from Y , but it does not IDENTIFY who Y is.

        the “this” COULD have been any one of….

        A plural pronoun doesn’t disprove johanine authorship. Instead of just assuming it, prove a point.”

        prove from john that “we” is “he”

        everytime a “we” is a “he” we see that the author NAMES the speaker who has made himself “we”

        the CONTEXT id’s the “we”

        also how do you know that john 3:14-18 was not a later crosstian congregational sermon ?
        why is jesus speaking like a christian in john 3:14-18 as if he is in church ?


      2. John Stewart

        @ Paulus
        The books are not the same, you have two different literary styles in two different languages. Please read the verse you quoted very slowly the author is not attributing this to John. If I’m retelling a story I say it in 1st person, again look at hadith as this is a more accurate analogy. You never see a hadith going:

        Narrated from Umar (the person who is telling the story):
        Umar was standing there(this was the Prophet’s (saw) father in law). He was with the Messenger when he said: “All actions are by their intentions…”

        Finally, you’ve offered a challenge on our scribes if I list them for you what happens in this discussion?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Paulus


        It’s ironic that you note that the two books aren’t the same but yet insist on using a Hadith as evidence against johanine authorship. See the irony? What about Ancient Greek bio? How does that operate? Why do ALL the gospels use third person? Why is John never mentioned by name on GJohn, but only the beloved disciple? Especially when John is mentioned by name in the other three gospels. You need to consider these points.

        Ok, Koranic scribes. I’ll pick an ayat. You tell me who the scribe was, ok. You demonstrate the scribe didn’t lie or fabricate anything, since that is the criteria you’ve employed against GJohn. You demonstrate that this scribe certainly was directed by muhammad to write it down. Tell me when it was written down and how it was confirmed as accurate.

        “All] sovereignty that Day is for Allah ; He will judge between them. So they who believed and did righteous deeds will be in the Gardens of Pleasure.“ 22:56


      4. “Why do ALL the gospels use third person? Why is John never mentioned by name on GJohn, but only the beloved disciple? Especially when John is mentioned by name in the other three gospels. You need to consider these points.”

        You need to demonstrate that this somehow precludes the possibility that the names of the apostles are not used precisely because they didn’t write them! Occam’s razor, Cerbie. What firm evidence is there that the gospels were written by the apostles?

        Did Greek writers use this literary technique? Was it an accepted form of literature? You need to consider these points.


      5. “A plural pronoun doesn’t disprove johanine authorship. Instead of just assuming it, prove a point. Perhaps consider how the Quran uses plural pronouns also.”

        It severely weakens the theory of Johannine authorship. The burden of proof is on you to prove it was John who wrote it. Why would John have used “we” instead of “I”? How could an illiterate John learn to write sophisticated Greek? You have to answer these questions, and thus far, you have done a terrible job. No answers. Just deflections. Tsk, tsk, tsk…

        “I’ve demonstrated that the author was the beloved disciple. The text makes this clear.”

        Um, no you haven’t and not it doesn’t.

        You, like most apologists, make leaps of faith about the authorship of the gospels and expect to be given the benefit of the doubt every time. The problem is that most people do not accept your excuses because they are illogical and unreasonable. “The author didn’t identify himself? Oh, that’s okay. The author uses the third person? Well, that’s also fine.”

        You have also provided no proof to support your claim that Polycarp knew John. That’s just another leap of faith for which there is no evidence. Where did Polycarp say that he knew John?


  18. “Why do ALL the gospels use third person? Why is John never mentioned by name on GJohn, but only the beloved disciple? Especially when John is mentioned by name in the other three gospels. You need to consider these points.”

    hold on .
    gospels use the third person. john is never mentioned by name in john. but only BD
    john is mentioned in the other 3

    this means john wrote the 4th gospel ? HAHAHA lol
    what is this?

    since john is mentioned in other 3 and is not mentioned in the 4th , then this implies that the BD should be IDENTIFIED as john ?


  19. John Stewart

    @ Paulus
    You’re committing a strawman fallacy. My argument was: “The identity of the scribes who authored the text is unknown. So we have no indication if this can be attributed to John as we don’t know if this person has even met him.”

    Next you said:
    “Why do ALL the gospels use third person? Why is John never mentioned by name on GJohn, but only the beloved disciple? Especially when John is mentioned by name in the other three gospels. You need to consider these points…”

    I agree. Thank you for seeing how someone could find this strange.

    No offense Paulus but I’ve literally quoted multiple sources of scholarship on a subject and you’ve dismissed them all (Numbers and Taph for example) and will just run off with your own personal opinion.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. John Stewart

    Okay, let me try this from one more angle. Paulus, you said you believe John is the author okay. For argument’s sake, I’ll go with this. We’ll ignore John telling his story in 3rd person and people explicitly saying we heard this from John and that its a known issue among the early Church of people attributing writings to the Disciples. You have 2 main issues:

    1. How could have John witnessed Jesus’s(as) trial when all the disciples fled?
    2. How come John contradicts the concept of the Trinity?
    3. How come John contradicts the Synoptics?

    Liked by 1 person

      1. can i ask what made you change your mind about 1?

        if you carefully note, the only gospels which require males at the crucifixion is the last two. . matthew has the women running off and telling the disciples about jesus’ trip to galilee “he is going BEFORE you…” then it says “NOW they went …” indicating the report reached them .

        john needs male witnesses because his sources fail to provide evidence that male witnesses knew where the tomb was.

        what better way to fix problem by having male disciples at the cross?

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Paulus

      2. He doesn’t.

      3. He doesn’t.

      Perhaps trying to not assume your premise into the question, because that is illogical. And try to be fair and consistent. I have hope do you…unlike Britney…

      Liked by 1 person

      1. John Stewart

        Alright, we have to set something up here then. If I prove that John does both of these and you agree what’s going to happen in our discussion?


      2. Paulus

        Let’s not waste our time. We won’t agree. You’ll cite a typical contradiction claim and I’ll provide an answer. Back and forth.

        We won’t agree.


  21. crosstian

    he says “we know his testimony is true”

    you assume “we” = “he”

    so he is saying ” i KNOW my testimony is true”

    why isn’t it possible that the author isn’t lying ?

    i know i just seen a man flap his arms all the way to the moon, because i know my testimony is true because i know my testimony is true….


  22. John Stewart

    @ Tony
    I had remembered this line of text: (emphasis mine)
    Now Simon Peter and “another disciple” were following Jesus. Since “that disciple” was known to the high priest, he also went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest. 16But Peter stood outside at the door. Then “the disciple” who was known to the high priest went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in. 17At this, the servant girl watching the door said to Peter, “Aren’t you also one of this man’s disciples?” “I am not,” he answered. 18Because it was cold, the servants and officers were standing around a charcoal fire they had made to keep warm. And Peter was also standing with them, warming himself. (John 18:15-18)

    Now again you could argue this is in 3rd person again so this disciple who was following isn’t John but with Paulus even when a verse straight up said “WE” heard this from ‘John’ and HIS testimony is true.’ it still supposed to be ‘John’ talking. (For some reason) And I would’ve become annoyed arguing the point. So I had decided to just scrap the argument but forgot to delete it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Paulus

      Well, i’d obviously become a muhammadan. I’d get a child bride, make sure my toes don’t touch during salah to invalidate my prayers and I’d probably start learning how to justify kissing stones and circling buildings like the pagans.

      Now, what will you do when you realise that GJohn is correct?


      1. Well, since your god already allows child brides and even impregnated a child bride so he could be born as a human, I don’t think you have to worry. 🙂

        Seriously though, Cerbie, what’s with the multiple emails? Are you involved in some sort of nefarious money-making scheme? Prosperity gospel? Is that it?


      2. i think that luke thought mary was four or five

        elizabeth is unable to conceive because of menopause

        now chexk out the parrallel

        Mary is unable to conceive because she was pre menstruration

        her question to the angel makes sence

        “How can i have child when i am virgin i.e PRE menstruration

        and according to matthew mary was already pregnant and after pregnancy joseph would have intimate relationship with his wife who was probably 4 or 5.

        yes mary was very young according to luke and matthew and it seems that ONE LADY IS OLD AND MIRACULOUSLY CONCEIVE WHILE OTHER IS VERY YOUNG AND MIRACULOUSLY CONCEIVE


      3. it all makes sense. ONE LADY IS TOO OLD TO CONCEIVE WHILE THE OTHER THINKS SHE IS TOO YOUNG TO CONCEIVE. what was paulis saying about child bride?


      4. the word mary used was “virgin”
        I wonder if there is support for the claim that virgin in jewish thought meant a girl who was pre menses

        that would be awesome amunition


      5. Medicine, Miracle, and Myth in the New Testament on p. 52:

        The response of the angel in Luke’s account seems to suggest that God could cause the pre-pubertal Mary to conceive in just the same way as he cause the post-menopausal Elizabeth to become pregnant, since in Jewish parlance, a married woman past child-bearing age was considered a virgin for a second time.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. John Stewart

        Alright, everyone, you heard him we have an agreement.

        Now I made 2 claims about John
        1. It goes against the concept of the Trinity
        2. It contradicts the Synoptics

        We’ll go one at a time until each point is made so we will focus on the Trinity for now. The Trinity is properly defined as:
        One God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. God is NOT one person who took three consecutive roles. That is the heresy of modalism. The Father did not become the Son and then the Holy Spirit. Instead, there have always been and always will be three distinct persons in the Godhead.

        If you’re still confused here is a diagram created by the Church to explain it

        Simple question Paulus, do you agree or disagree with this?

        Liked by 1 person

      7. Cerbie ran away. Do you think if we put out an “Award” poster, someone will find him and return him to us? It can say something like:

        “MISSING: One Dog of Hell. Answers to the name Cerbie. Reward offered for any information as to his whereabouts.”


    2. Brother John, didn’t I tell you about Cerbie? This is who he is. But again, don’t blame him. He is frustrated at the failure of his religion. All he can do is cry and lash out at others to compensate for his own insecurities. He is actually a blessing in disguise because the more people see that he has no answers and can only lash out, the more people will see what a fraud he and his religion are. Hallelujah!


  23. Pingback: Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – “Unforgiven?” – The Quran and Bible Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s