Why Would Jesus Have to Die on the Cross?

According to the Christian doctrine, Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins. The idea here is that every human is born with sins, or that all humans will sin, and therefore it was necessary that someone as pure as Jesus would be the crucified to nullify these sins.

Matthew 9:13

13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

The question is:

why does anyone have to die for our sins when God, the All-Merciful, could as easily give us forgiveness if we ask for it?

1.) Isn't God the one who makes the rules?

2.) Why does He have to make someone suffer for our sins or for someone else's sins?

3.) Isn't that unjust of Him?

According to the Bible the way to redemption could be obtained without the need for sacrifice.

The Bible says:

Ezekiel 18:20

" The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him".

Ezekiel 18:21

" But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die".

Clearly the soul that sins shall die. Clearly that no one shall bear the iniquity (sins) of others. So Jesus cannot bear the sins of others either. If one is righteous then it shall be upon him, and if one commits a sin then it shall be upon him, and not on Jesus. Finally, the way to repentance and forgiveness is by turning from all sins, doing what is right, and keeping the commandments.

Ecclesiastes 12:12-13

12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

What The Bible Really Says About Jesus? Should We Use Our Mind?

The Bible says that Jesus is a prophet and no one can deny that, but it seems that Christian try to ignore this fact which is by itself one of the biggest proofs that Jesus is not God, now let's see what does "Prophet" means:

"A prophet is basically a spokesman for God, a person chosen by God to speak to people on God's behalf and convey a message or teaching."

Jesus said;

Matthew 15:24

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Now this definition tottaly shows that prophets are not and can not be divine, but they speak for God, prophets proclaim the message that given to them, so they are not more than a spokesman for God; they only speak in God's behalf and by God's authority, as it is not suitable for his Majesty to come by Himself to speak with men as the Bible itself says [2 Chronicles 6:18-21], so a prophet can not be God in the same time because that does not make any sense, so he either a prophet or God, the Bible says that Jesus was a Prophet (Luke 24:19, Luke 7:16, Mark 6:4), but never says he is God. 

Jesus himself confirmed this definition as he said: 

"... I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but he sent me." (John 8:42)

"...The words that you're hearing me say are not mine, but come from the Father who sent me." (John 14:24)

"Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me." (John 7:16)

Why Didn't Jesus Plainly Say He Was God?

By Br. Bassam Zawadi 

Christians usually give verses from the Bible where Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life", "I am the way, the truth, the life", "I am the bread of life", etc. to prove that Jesus claimed to be God. All of these arguments have been proven false to show that Jesus claimed divinity.

As for these claims that Jesus made, we have to remember that Jesus used to talk figuratively. But then when he talked plainly with his disciples he made it clear that he was sent FROM God and that he did not say that he WAS God.

John 16:25-33

25 "Though I have been speaking figuratively (paroimia), a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.

26 In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf.

27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.

28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."

29 Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech.

30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God."

31 "You believe at last!"[b] Jesus answered.

32 "But a time is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.

33 "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

The word paroimia could mean...

1) a saying out of the usual course or deviating from the usual manner of speaking

a) a current or trite saying, a proverb

2) any dark saying which shadows forth some didactic truth

a) esp. a symbolic or figurative saying

b) speech or discourse in which a thing is illustrated by the use of similes and comparisons

c) an allegory

1) extended and elaborate metaphor

Source: 

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1146511128-5176.html

Christians usually argue that Jesus used to talk in parables and therefore his disciples might not have understood him clear enough. However, in the passage I just cited we see that Jesus was talking plainly and not figuratively.

Now if Jesus was talking plainly then why didn't the disciples just go and say that they knew Jesus was God and not just sent by God?

THE ENEMIES OF JESUS CHRIST

THE ORIGIN OF THE WORD "CHRIST"

To understand clearly who is the enemy of Jesus Christ we should have to know the meaning of the word "Christ." Christ is an English word derived from the Greek word "Christos." "Christos" is a translation from the Hebrew word Messiah which literally means "anointed." In Arabic it is "Maseeh" and in Aramaic, "Meshiha." In Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic (the Semitic languages) that title is given only to a man or a creation-not to God or Creator. No one can anoint God! No one is Higher than God: A person who anoints must be higher than a person who is being anointed. In brief, "Christ" means "anointed." It may be a person or a thing. In linguistic meaning, "Maseeh" is a noun or a name. However this title or name is given exclusively only to Jesus, the son of Mary in the Qur'aan. 

Therefore, whoever says that Christ was a man, has perceived a correct understanding of its true meaning. Anyone who says that Christ is God, man-God or God-incarnate is an opponent of Christ Jesus and the Anti-Christ as well. "Anti" means against, opposed, contrary, for example; Anti-Arab, Anti-Muslims, Anti-Filipino, Anti-Christ. 

DID JESUS COME IN THE FLESH, AS A SPIRIT (GOD), OR AS GOD-MAN?

The Bible says, (2 John 1:7 NIV) "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."

(John 3:6 NRSV): "What is born of the flesh is flesh and what is born of the Spirit is spirit." (Rom 9:5 NRSV): "To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, …”

(Acts 2:22 KJV): "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him …" (1 John 4:2 NIV): "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." If anyone believes that Jesus Christ is a mere human being but endowed with miracles from God, then he is a man of God. You and I are born (come) in the flesh, as well as Jesus: The Bible testifies, "According to the flesh, comes the Messiah…" Rom. 9:5.

In fact, there are two groups that go in extreme position then say, "Jesus is God in human form," or "Jesus is a man, yet at the same time God" and the other who say that “Jesus” was an illegitimate (bastard) son of Mary.” Jesus never said those words! Priests, Ministers, Nuns, Pastors, Reverends, Rabbis, etc. are telling those lies. God has warned these people: 

"When Jesus… said: I have come unto you with wisdom, and to make plain some of that concerning which ye differ. So keep your duty to Allaah, and obey me. Lo! God, He is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him. This is a right path. But the factions among them differed. Then woe unto those who do wrong from the doom of a painful day."Qur'aan (Az-Zukhruf) 43:63-65.

APPARITION IS THE HANDIWORK OF THE ENEMIES OF CHRIST

"…if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is ! ' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles  to deceive even the elect--if that were possible. So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms ,' do not believe it."Matthew 24:23, 24 & 26. 

The Christians are not contented to say; "we have seen Christ." Rather, they say, "Christ in us," "we have seen Jesus' mother (Mary)," or "the Holy Spirit spoke to me." Jesus had warned about these people because they are Anti-Christs and hence his enemies. Jesus said; "For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many." (Mathew 24:5).We Muslims neither use the name of Christ when we perform anything nor we call him “Lord”. We say, in the name of Allah Most Gracious, Most Merciful (Bismillaher Rahmanir Raheem). But Christians when they eat, baptized, marry, or any performances they say; “In the name of Jesus”. Jesus said, “Many will say to me Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name? Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evil doers.’”—(Matthew 7:22-23). Jesus was referring to Christians, or to anyone who call “Lord” other than the sole creator of the universe. Because Jesus foretold them that there is only One Lord, who is in heaven. In the Bible,Mark 12:29: "The most important one, answered Jesus, is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.’” 

BEWARE OF THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS

The Pope, Priests, Rabbi, leaders, Pastors, Reverends…like to be greeted in public and in their churches (synagogues) and would occupy the most important seats: Even as late comers, they would want to sit in front. Look! What did Jesus say unto them? "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets." Luke 20:46 NIV)

WHO DEVOURS THE WIDOWS’ AND ORPHANS’ WEALTH? 

(Luke 20:47 NIV) They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."

Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism, encourage the orphans and widows to offer what they have, with the pretext that gods or God needs their offerings. In Islam, God orders us to give to those who are deserving: "…Kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and unto the neighbor who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbor who is not of kin and the fellow traveler and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess. Lo! Allaah loveth not such as are proud and boastful." Qur'aan (An-Nisaa) 4:36. 

There are people pretending to be good shepherds but they are wolves in shining garments. The poor, orphans, widows and the innocent are used for their devilish motives. False religions are propagated to appear in the path of righteousness, but in reality their leaders drink, eat and live abundantly at the expense of innocent members. Tithes, offerings, contributions, ceremonial payments are the elements which those leaders organize even under critical conditions. 

Islam is the only religion (brought by Ibrahim, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, peace be upon them all), which gives justice and mercy to the poor and needy. Those unfortunate people (poor and needy) are the ones who should receive help according to Islam. 

Note: My belief is rooted in the Qur'aan and Sahih Hadith: but sometimes I have used the Bible or other references to substantiate my arguments for the non-Muslims, who reject Islamic proofs. I agree 100% that to strengthen our faith in Islam is to read the Qur’aan and Sahih Hadith. However, for the sake of Da’wah, quoting non-Islamic materials is necessary for the non-Muslims who do not believe the Qur’aan to be the word of God, and do not believe that Prophet MUHAMMAD (pbuh) is a Messenger from God! 

WARNINGS FROM THE BIBLE, AGAINST THE ENEMIES OF JESUS CHRIST(PBUH)

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen." Romans 1:25

Finally, an anti-Christ is a person who does not believe that Jesus Christ is a mere human being. People who say that Jesus in a man-God, or God in human form (incarnate) are the enemies of Jesus. Jesus said (John 8:40 NRSV) “but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did”.

Cyrus (559-529 B.C.) a pagan king of Persia was also Meshiah.-Isaiah 45:1. Meshiah means annointed. It could be man, pillar , basin, or a place. For further study please read: (Gen. 31:13, Lev. 4:3, 2Sam. 5:17, Exo. 40:11, Dan. 9:24).

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen." Romans 1:25

1 TIM 6:13-16

6:13 "I charge (you) before God, who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus, who gave testimony under Pontius Pilate for the noble confession,"  

6:14 "to keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ"  

6:15 "that the blessed and only ruler will make manifest at the proper time, the King of kings and Lord of lords,"  

6:16 "who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, and whom no human being has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal power. Amen." 

☟ Usage of words in bible ☟

❑ DISGUSTFUL COMMAND TO EZEKIEL

➲ And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with ⇛ DUNG THAT COMETH OUT OF MAN , in their sight.And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the nations, where I will drive them.

Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul has not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dies of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.Then he said unto me, Lo, ⇛ I HAVE GIVEN YOU COW'S DUNG FOR HUMAN DUNG , and you shall prepare your bread over it.[Ezek. 4:12-15]

❑ THEY EAT DUNG & DRINK PISS

➲ But Sennacherib's chief of staff replied, "Do you think my master sent this message only to you and your master? He wants all the people to hear it, for when we put this city under siege, they will suffer along with you. They will be so hungry and thirsty ⇛ THAT THEY WILL EAT THEIR WON DUNG AND DRINK THEIR OWN URINE." [2 Kings 18:27]

❑ DUNG ON YOUR FACE

➲ Behold, I will rebuke your offspring, and ⇛ SPREAD DUNG ON YOUR FACES, the dung of your offerings, and you shall be taken away with it. [Malachi 2:3]

❑ A TALKING ASS. 

➲ When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam was angry and struck the donkey with his stick.Then the LORD ⇛ OPENED THE DONKEY'S MOUTH , and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?" [NUMBERS 22:27-28]

❑ THE WORD "BASTARD" IN THE BIBLE !!

➲ A ⇛ BASTARD should not enter into the congregation of the Lord. [Hebrew 12:8] Then you are ⇛ BASTARDS, and not sons. (K.J.V) [Deut. 23:2]

➲ It means you are not real sons, but BASTARDS. (G.N.B) [Hebrew 12:8]

❑ HOW TO RESCUE HER HUSBAND

➲ When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand seizes him by the private parts, ⇛ THEN YOU SHALL CUT OFF HER HAND; your eye shall have not pity. [Deut. 25:11]

☟ Use and Mention of Words in QURAN ☟

❑ There is a verse in the Qur'an which says:

➲ "This a scripture whose ⇛ verses are perfected and then expounded." (11:1)

Which tells us that there are ⇛ no wasted words in the Qur'an; that each verse is perfected and then it is explained. It could not be in a better form. One could not use fewer words to say the same thing or if one uses more words one would only be adding ⇛ superfluous information.

═╬ When, How and Who Changed Bible Books 73 into 66 ? ═╬

The Bible clearly told us this;

2 Timothy 3:16

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [ http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ]

❏ So why does the Catholic Bible have 73 books, while the Protestant Bible has only 66 books?


When ALL Bible readers can clearly read and Understand this from their own book The Bible?

Revelation 22:18-19

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

⇨ Some protestants believe that the Catholic Church added 7 books to the Bible at the Council of Trent in response to Luther’s Reformation, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.

⇨ In about 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was finally approved by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD, and was formally approved by the Church Council of Rome in that same year. Later Councils at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) ratified this list of 73 books. In 405 AD, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse reaffirming this canon of 73 books. In 419 AD, the Council of Carthage reaffirmed this list, which Pope Boniface agreed to. The Council of Trent, in 1546, in response to the Reformation removing 7 books from the canon (canon is a Greek word meaning “standard”), reaffirmed the original St. Athanasius list of 73 books.

❏ So what happened? 

⇨ How come the King James Bible only has 66 books? Well, Martin Luther didn’t like 7 books of the Old Testament that disagreed with his personal view of theology, so he threw them out of his bible in the 16th Century. His reasoning was that the Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 AD didn’t think they were canonical, so he didn’t either. The Jewish Council of Jamnia was a meeting of the remaining Jews from Palestine who survived the Roman persecution of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It seems that the Jews had never settled on an official canon of OT scripture before this. The Sadducees only believed in the first 5 books of the Bible written by Moses (the Pentateuch), while the Pharisees believed in 34 other books of the Old Testament as well. However, there were other Jews around from the Diaspora, or the dispersion of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, who believed that another 7 books were also divinely inspired. In fact, when Jesus addressed the Diaspora Jews (who spoke Greek) he quoted from the Septuagint version of the scriptures. The Septuagint was a Greek translation by 70 translators of the Hebrew Word. The Septuagint includes the disputed 7 books that Protestants do not recognize as scriptural.

❏ What about |New testament ?

⇨ Initially, Luther wanted to kick out some New Testament Books as well, including James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. He actually said that he wanted to “throw Jimmy into the fire”, and that the book of James was “an epistle of straw.” What is strange is that Luther eventually accepted all 27 books of the New Testament that the Catholic Pope Damasus I had approved of in 382 AD, but didn’t accept his Old Testament list, preferring instead to agree with the Jews of 90 AD. Luther really didn’t care much for Jews, and wrote an encyclical advocating the burning of their synagogues, which seems like a dichotomy.

☛ Why trust them to come up with an accurate canon of scripture when you hate and distrust them so much?

☛ And why trust the Catholic Church which he called “the whore of Babylon” to come up with an accurate New Testament list?

☛ Can you imagine the outrage by non-Catholics today if the Pope started throwing books out of the Bible?

☛ But strangely, Luther gets a pass on doing that exact same thing.

ISLAM SAYS ^^^^^^^^So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.[QURAN 2:79]

What Non-Muslim (Christian) Scholars say about the Quran?

Humanity has received the Divine guidance through two channels:

firstly the word of Allah,

secondly the Prophets who were chosen by Allah to communicate His will to human beings.

These two things have always been going together and attempts to know the will of Allah by neglecting either of these two have always been misleading. The Hindus neglected their prophets and paid all attention to their books that proved only word puzzles which they ultimately lost. Similarly, the Christians, in total disregard to the Book of Allah, attached all importance to Christ and thus not only elevated him to Divinity, but also lost the very essence of TAWHEED (monotheism) contained in the Bible.

As a matter of fact the main scriptures revealed before the Qur'an, i.e., the Old Testament and the Gospel, came into book-form long after the days of the Prophets and that too in translation. This was because the followers of Moses and Jesus made no considerable effort to preserve these Revelations during the life of their Prophets. Rather they were written long after their death.

Thus what we now have in the form of the Bible (The Old as well as the New Testament) is translations of individuals' accounts of the original revelations which contain additions and deletions made by the followers of the said Prophets. On the contrary, the last revealed Book, the Qur'an, is extant in its original form. Allah Himself guaranteed its preservation and that is why the whole of the Qur'an was written during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself though on separate pieces of palm leaves, parchments, bones, etc...

Moreover, there were tens of thousands of companions of the Prophet who memorized the whole Qur'an and the Prophet himself used to recite to the Angel Gabriel once a year and twice when he was about to die. The first Caliph Abu Bakr entrusted the collection of the whole Qur'an in one volume to the Prophet's scribe, Zaid Ibn Thabit. This volume was with Abu Bakr till his death.

Then it was with the second Caliph Umar and after him it came to Hafsa, the Prophet's wife. It was from this original copy that the third Caliph Uthman prepared several other copies and sent them to different Muslim territories. The Qur'an was so meticulously preserved because it was to be the Book of guidance for humanity for all times to come. That is why it does not address the Arabs alone in whose language it was revealed. It speaks to man as a human being:

"O Man! What has seduced you from your Lord." The practicability of the Qur'anic teachings is established by the examples of Muhammad (PBUH) and the good Muslims throughout the ages. The distinctive approach of the Qur'an is that its instructions are aimed at the general welfare of man and are based on the possibilities within his reach. In all its dimensions the Qur'anic wisdom is conclusive. It neither condemns nor tortures the flesh nor does it neglect the soul. It does not humanize God nor does it deify man. Everything is carefully placed where it belongs in the total scheme of creation.

Actually the scholars who allege that Muhammad (PBUH) was the author of the Qur'an claim something which is humanly impossible. Could any person of the sixth century C.E. utter such scientific truths as the Qur'an contains? Could he describe the evolution of the embryo inside the uterus so accurately as we find it in modern science?

Secondly, is it logical to believe that Muhammad (PBUH), who up to the age of forty was marked only for his honesty and integrity, began all of a sudden the authorship of a book matchless in literary merit and the equivalent of which the whole legion of the Arab poets and orators of highest calibre could not produce? And lastly, is it justified to say that Muhammad (PBUH) who was known as AL-AMEEN (The Trustworthy) in his society and who is still admired by the non-Muslim scholars for his honesty and integrity, came forth with a false claim and on that falsehood could train thousands of men of character, integrity and honesty, who were able to establish the best human society on the surface of the earth? Surely, any sincere and unbiased searcher of truth will come to believe that the Qur'an is the revealed Book of Allah.

Without necessarily agreeing with all that they said, we furnish here some opinions of important non-Muslim scholars about the Qur'an. Readers can easily see how the modern world is coming closer to reality regarding the Qur'an. We appeal to all open-minded scholars to study the Qur'an in the light of the aforementioned points. We are sure that any such attempt will convince the reader that the Qur'an could never be written by any human being.

"However often we turn to it [the Qur'an] at first disgusting us each time afresh, it soon attracts, astounds, and in the end enforces our reverence... Its style, in accordance with its contents and aim is stern, grand, terrible - ever and anon truly sublime -- Thus this book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence."

Goethe, quoted in T.P. Hughes' DICTIONARY OF ISLAM, p. 526.

"The Koran admittedly occupies an important position among the great religious books of the world. Though the youngest of the epoch-making works belonging to this class of literature, it yields to hardly any in the wonderful effect which it has produced on large masses of men. It has created an all but new phase of human thought and a fresh type of character. It first transformed a number of heterogeneous desert tribes of the Arabian peninsula into a nation of heroes, and then proceeded to create the vast politico-religious organizations of the Muhammadan world which are one of the great forces with which Europe and the East have to reckon today."

G. Margoliouth, Introduction to J.M. Rodwell's, THE KORAN, New York: Everyman's Library, 1977, p. vii.

"A work, then, which calls forth so powerful and seemingly incompatible emotions even in the distant reader - distant as to time, and still more so as a mental development - a work which not only conquers the repugnance which he may begin its perusal, but changes this adverse feeling into astonishment and admiration, such a work must be a wonderful production of the human mind indeed and a problem of the highest interest to every thoughtful observer of the destinies of mankind."

Dr. Steingass, quoted in T.P. Hughes' DICTIONARY OF ISLAM, pp. 526-527.

"The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?"

Maurice Bucaille, THE BIBLE, THE QUR'AN AND SCIENCE, 1978, p. 125.

"Here, therefore, its merits as a literary production should perhaps not be measured by some preconceived maxims of subjective and aesthetic taste, but by the effects which it produced in Muhammad's contemporaries and fellow countrymen. If it spoke so powerfully and convincingly to the hearts of his hearers as to weld hitherto centrifugal and antagonistic elements into one compact and well-organized body, animated by ideas far beyond those which had until now ruled the Arabian mind, then its eloquence was perfect, simply because it created a civilized nation out of savage tribes, and shot a fresh woof into the old warp of history."

Dr. Steingass, quoted in T.P. Hughes' DICTIONARY OF ISLAM, p.528.

"In making the present attempt to improve on the performance of my predecessors, and to produce something which might be accepted as echoing however faintly the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic Koran, I have been at pains to study the intricate and richly varied rhythms which - apart from the message itself - constitute the Koran's undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest literary masterpieces of mankind... This very characteristic feature - 'that inimitable symphony,' as the believing Pickthall described his Holy Book, 'the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy' - has been almost totally ignored by previous translators; it is therefore not surprising that what they have wrought sounds dull and flat indeed in comparison with the splendidly decorated original."

Arthur J. Arberry, THE KORAN INTERPRETED, London: Oxford University Press, 1964, p. x.

"A totally objective examination of it [the Qur'an] in the light of modern knowledge, leads us to recognize the agreement between the two, as has been already noted on repeated occasions. It makes us deem it quite unthinkable for a man of Muhammad's time to have been the author of such statements on account of the state of knowledge in his day. Such considerations are part of what gives the Qur'anic Revelation its unique place, and forces the impartial scientist to admit his inability to provide an explanation which calls solely upon materialistic reasoning."Maurice Bucaille, THE QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE, 1981, p. 18.

◔ Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) Treatment to the Christians

● In 628 AD, a delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery came to Prophet Muhammed and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights.

● St. Catherine’s Monastery is located at the foot of Mt. Sinai and is the world’s oldest monastery. It possess a huge collection of Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for 1400 years under Muslim protection.

⇛ Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) Message to St. Catherine:

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. 

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achtiname_of_Muhammad]

⌦ ✍ BIBLE DOES NOT HAVE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS ✍ ⌫

➲ It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that ✎we don't have the ✎originals—so saying they were inspired doesn't help me much, unless ✎I can reconstruct the originals.

➲ Moreover, the vast majority of Christians for the ✎entire history of the church ✎have not had access to the originals, making their inspiration something of a moot point.

➲ Not only do ✎we not have the originals, we don't have the ✎first copies of the originals. We ✎don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or ✎copies of the ✎copies of the ✎copies of the originals.

➲ What we have are ✎copies made later—much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from ✎one another, in many ✎thousands of places

➲ These ✎copies differ from one another in so many places that we don't even know how ✎many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in Comparative terms: there are ✎more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the ✎New Testament.

BART D. EHRMAN IN MISQUOTING JESUS