Abdools love twisting the words of God to deceive people into thinking the Bible has contradictions, if you earnestly study the word of God deeply you’ll realise there are no contradictions. Unlike the Qur’ān which has many contradictions, a Christian lady with some rather strange doctrine was engaged in a discussion with a Muslim and while she held her own she was not prepared to get them busted.
Before we get into it the reason why I say the lady had strange doctrine is that she said a few things that caught my attention.
- She seems to deny the name Jesus and would rather use the name Yeshua.
- The woman said the Pentecostals are wrong because they are speaking in tongues and these are demons. I can partially agree and say there are no tongues today according to 1 Corinthians 13:8. In the book of Acts they spoke in tongues because God was getting the message of salvation out to people of different languages. It was not a made-up mumbo jumbo talk in which they are not saying anything. She should have been more clear about that.
- She denies that Christ died on a cross, her argument was in Greek the word (σταυρός / stauros) means upright stake. The word doesn’t mean that it was not a cross, a cross is also an upright stake just with a crossbeam. Also by examining the scriptures we see it had to be a cross because the sign which said “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” was “set up over his head” (ἐπάνω / epanō) according to Matthew. Luke also says “a superscription also was written over him” (ἐπί / epi). If Jesus was on a stake like the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim it should say over his hands, because his hands would have to be above his head. But she denies the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
- She also said the Old Testament is no good anymore, this is untrue, while as Christians we’re no longer under the Law (Old Testament) but we are under Grace (New Testament).
The Old Testament is still very much relevant, the Law is a schoolmaster to bring sinners to Christ.
This cannot be stressed too much, it’s of high importance that Christians learn what Muslims believe by doing so you’ll be in a better position to engage with Muslims. Learn from their own sources, preferably from Muhammad himself for who better knows Islam than their own prophet. Additionally, Muslims cannot go against what Muhammad taught.
Unfortunately besides some of the strange doctrines, this woman held she was on constant defence (apologetics) against what the Muslim was asking. Christians are very much used to apologetics as our faith has been on constant attack ever since the beginning, therefore, we’ve become well versed in defending/providing answers (ἀπολογία / apologia) for our faith (1 Peter 3:15).
Islam has always been polemical against the Christian faith, therefore, when Muslims engage with Christians they want to ensure they stay in the drivers sit asking questions. This gives them leverage in the conversation to attack the beliefs of the Christian. This is why I stress that Christians should flip the tables on them by being polemical and keeping the Muslim on the defensive.
Muslims don’t believe in the Bible this is why it’s more effective to use their Qur’ān and Hadith’s against them before bringing them into the scriptures of the Holy Bible.
An Asian Muslim from Medina Van claimed there were contradictions in the Bible and brought up 2 arguments frequently used by Muslims.
1. How did Judas die?
The Muslim thinks there’s a contradiction between the 2 accounts found in Matthew and the book of Acts concerning Judas’ death. In Matthew we’re told that Judas came to the Pharisees after being convicted of the great sin he committed in handing Jesus over to them. In his great sorrow and condemnation, he tossed the 30 pieces of silver down and went out and hanged himself.
In the book of Acts Peter is recounting the story saying Judas was a disciple but betrayed the Lord Jesus. Peter says that Judas purchased the field of blood otherwise known as Ἀκελδαμά / akeldama.
These two accounts don’t contradict themselves because the money which Judas accepted from the Pharisees was initially in the possession of Judas, and he tossed the money down, this was the same money the Pharisees used to buy the field of blood because it was not lawful for them to keep the money as it was blood money. Therefore it was as if Judas bought the field himself even though it was the priest who physically purchased the field.
In the Bible there’s both literal and figurative speech, let’s also not forget that all 4 Gospel writers wrote the same account, while one author choose to focus on a specific detail another rather emphasised another detail. If all 4 writers wrote every detail verbatim then there would be no need for 4 Gospels, it would be redundant. But God in all His wisdom and glory had it to be this way because these 4 accounts are witnesses to each other.
Unlike the Qur’ān in which one book has no witness because it’s anonymous, how do we know for certain Muhammad received revelation from Allah? The Muslim would point to the Qur’ān as his evidence which is circular argumentation, but no one was there to witness it.
Who wrote the Qur’ān?
This question was asked on Islam.qa and they didn’t give an answer but like many Muslims gave a speech and never answered the question. If you ask a Muslim they will say Allah is the author of the Qur’ān but why didn’t this Muslim website say that? In fact, it says that Muhammad prohibited the writing down of the Qur’ān.
The prohibition to write anything other than the Qur’ān At first the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade the writing of anything other than the Qur’ān, and he forbade them to write down his words for a while, so that the Sahabah would focus on memorizing the Qur’ān and writing it down, and so that the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would not be confused with the words of Allah, and so the Qur’ān was protected from anything being added or taken away.Who Wrote the Quran?
But they gave zero references saying that at some point it was fine to write the Qur’ān. In the Hadith is says that Muhammad was against writing the Qur’ān, it also says that Allah opened the chest of Abu Bakr is the Hadith suggesting that Abu Bakr is also a prophet as well?
2. Came to bring a sword
A typical Muslim argument is they try to paint a picture of a violent Jesus in the New Testament because Muhammad was obviously a crazy man who killed men, women and children. Therefore, when Abdools are cornered they say Jesus came with a sword, and they mean this to be literal.
If you read the verses in their context Christ is not speaking of killing anyone, He’s speaking of believers who because of their faith in Jesus will go through rough times. Notice in v35 it says those who will be against the believer will be his own family. This is confirmed in the next verse as it says the man’s enemies will be the people of his household.
The cost of following Jesus Christ is a big cost and is not to be taken lightly. Never did Jesus Christ advocate violence He even told Peter to put away His sword when he wanted to defend Christ by violence.
Muhammad on the other hand as mentioned was a lunatic who was wicked. Muslims are commanded to fight/kill (sūrat l-tawbah) non-muslims.
According to this ayat if a Muslim wants to ensure they will get to Paradise they are ordered to kill and die for the sake of Islam. Ibn Abbas in his tafsir confirms this speaking of how Muslims are to “slay the enemy.”
This is a “bargain” according to Abbas or as the Qur’ān says a covenant between Allah and the Muslim. How is this the “religion of peace” as Abdools claim?
3. John 1:1
The woman who was talking with this Muslim started to fumble as she was constantly defending the Bible, and most Christians don’t know much about Islam unfortunately. Therefore, when they speak with a Muslim who is pressing them with questions, they find they are on their heels. Christians need to turn those questions back on them and have the Muslim answer questions.
In the discussion, the topic of John 1:1 was brought up and she said something horribly incorrect, she said Jesus is “a” god. Reminiscent of the Jehovah’s Witness argument, when studying Greek one of the beginning fundamentals is that the definite article also known as “the” in English is written in different ways as it follows a declension as Greek is a highly inflected language.
Also, and this is of high importance in Greek there’s no such thing as an indefinite article (“a/an”) in Greek this doesn’t exist. We do have this in the English language but not in Greek, there’s only one has only one article.
The Greek article changes spelling to match the noun it modifies (ὁ, ἡ, τό) each one represents a different gender, when I mention gender I’m not speaking of natural genders such as between men and woman, Greek words display a multitude of information depending on its case.
Masculine: ὁ Feminine: ἡ Neuter: τό
The 3 articles listed are only for the nominative singular forms of the respective genders. Not to get too deep into the Greek construction but just know that when someone says “a god” this doesn’t exist in Greek. Unfortunately, the woman who was speaking with the Muslim was really misinformed calling Yeshua “a god” falling into error. We only believe in 1 God, not 2 or 3.
In Islam, they actually believe in polytheism as Allah is god who can create life, but Jibril also created life when he blew into Islamic Mary’s private part and made Isa. Then Isa is also attributed with creating life as he fashion clay birds and blew life into them bringing them to life.
Here in 21:91, Jibril is the one doing the creating, not to mention that Muslims try to focus on Allah giving Jibril the ability to do this, but that doesn’t take away the fact that Jibril is a creator like Allah.
In the Bible, we only have 1 Creator that’s the LORD all 3 Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are the one God who created all things, as they are of the one essence. Even Isa (Islamic Jesus) is a creator according to the Qur’ān as he has the ability to create life-like Jibril.
But in the Qur’ān you have “god” otherwise known as “Allah” giving others the ability to create life? This is why Allah confesses that there are other Creators (gods) besides himself in Al-Mu’minun 23:12-14. It doesn’t matter if Jibril and Isa were given the ability by Allah, the point is that they are capable of creating like Allah and, therefore, they are other creators along with Allah.
4. No one is good but the Father?
In the synoptic Gospels, there’s another verse Muslims absolutely love, it’s the story of the rich young ruler who came to Jesus looking for eternal life found in Matthew 19:16–22; Mark 10:17–22; Luke 18:18–23 . The lady said something wrong when this verse came up, she commented that Jesus claimed only the Father was good. This is not true as the word Father is not mentioned in the text, I challenge any Abdool to find the word Father in the verse.
ὁ δὲ εἰπεν αὐτῷ Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθον οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός· εἰ μὴ εἷς ὅ Θεός. εἰ δὲ θέλεις εἰσελθεῖν
εἰς τὴν ζωὴν τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς
The Greek word Θεός means God, not Father, Christians need to be careful when reading such passages. The Lord Jesus never said He’s not good, in fact, Christ was giving the rich young ruler an opportunity to confess that he’s calling Jesus God by calling Him good. The woman also said Jesus never said He’s the Almighty and once again she’s incorrect. In the book of Revelation Jesus Christ is the speaker and specifically says He’s the Almighty (ὁ παντοκράτωρ / pantokratōr).
My hope is twofold in this article the first is that Muslims are severely lost, they think they know what they are talking about but they truly don’t. They have been taught to regurgitate the same lame arguments over and over, to distort scriptures by wrenching them out of their context. Here on this blog, they can’t get away with that, those tricks only work with people who are ignorant of what the scriptures teach. The second is I hope all believers in Jesus Christ will realise the importance of knowing the Bible and how to defend it and simultaneously putting Muslims on the defensive by asking them pressing questions about the Qur’ān.
Let’s pray that Muslims will come to know the real Jesus Christ, and also that the lady who was engaging with this Muslim comes out of her erroneous doctrines. We’re calling all Muslims to come to Jesus for salvation.
To view how Christians shouldn’t respond to Muslims you can view the video on the Madina Van channel:
 σταυρός staurós, stow-ros’; from the base of G2476; a stake or post (as set upright), i.e. (specially), a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment); figuratively, exposure to death, i.e. self-denial; by implication, the atonement of Christ:—cross.
 All this gives Luke an opportunity to explain to the reader what happened to Judas. Acts 1:18-19 are thus correctly put in parentheses in most recent translations as comments of the author and not part of Peter’s speech, as the KJV might suggest. The details here differ somewhat from those given in Matthew 27:5-7. They can be reconciled, however, by remembering that it was Judas’s money that was used to buy the field, and he can be said, as here in Acts (1:18), to have bought the field. Then it is possible that he fastened a rope around his neck, as in Matthew, before he fell and burst open, as here in Luke’s account. This is an explanation first made by Augustine of Hippo and found in the Latin Vulgate of ancient times. Faw, C. E. (1993). Acts (Ser. Believers church bible commentary). Herald Press. Retrieved July 10, 2022, p
 Definition of prohibition: 1. the act of prohibiting by authority 2. an order to restrain or stop Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Prohibition. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved July 15, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prohibition
 The kingdom brought by Jesus, the kingdom that the disciples are charged to preach, has come near; it is the kingdom that is the alternative to all the kingdoms created by death. Jesus tells his disciples that, just as Mic. 7:6– 7 predicted, brother will kill brother, fathers will betray children, and children will seek to destroy their parents; and all those so captured by the kingdom of death will hate the disciples who witness to the name of Jesus. These are quite extraordinary results for preaching the kingdom of God, but Jesus instructs the disciples to expect such a response. Hauerwas, S. (2006). Matthew (Ser. Brazos theological commentary on the bible). Brazos Press. p192
 The Cost of Discipleship: Luke 14:25-33 Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.
 A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος “and God was the Word.” We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) Why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of the article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of the article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism. keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of the article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God” (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God” (orthodoxy).
Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος . Daniel B. Wallace Mounce, W. D. (2019). Basics of biblical greek grammar : Fourth edition. HarperCollins Christian Publishing.
 Chapter (23) sūrat l-mu’minūn (The Believers) 23:14 Pickthall: Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!
 Jesus, as often, tries to draw from the man the full implications of his own words. He had come to a teacher for help and recognized him as good : but had he yet realized what was involved at the deepest level in such an attribution? Had he yet made the identiﬁcation of Jesus with God that would enable him to recognize the true nature of this good teacher, as Peter had in 8:29? For only such a divine Messiah could give him that eternal life which confessedly he desired to have but had not. Schweizer well says that this is not merely the search for a well adjusted happy life, but for something which is far deeper: this man was in earnest, and his quest was right. But his basic error was far more fundamental than a failure to recognize Jesus as Messiah, although it would have been an error shared by most in Judaism (Schweizer compares Ps.15 and Ps.24). He still saw salvation as something to be attained by his own efforts. Until he was ready to receive it by faith as something completely undeserved, of which he was not worthy, he could not enjoy it. Cole, R. A. (2008). Mark. InterVarsity Press.pp 237, 238