In the Name of Jesus Christ, the Almighty God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, the Holy One of Israel -- Gracious, forgiving, slow to anger, quick with mercy...
by: Michael D Macon

This article is written in response to the piece "60 Questions for the Chrisitans" written by the Mohammedian Khalid al-Hussein. The original can be reviewed at his site. I will here reproduce his questions verbatim, and then respond.

TRINITY

According to most Christians, Jesus was God-incarnate, full man and full God. Can the finite and the infinite be one? "To be full" God means freedom from finite forms and from helplessness, and to be "full man" means the absence of divinity.

Whatever is "according to most Christians" is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is, "what is according to God, as recorded in His inerrant Word?" Truth is not determined by majority vote -- it is imposed, dictated, from an entirely external and transcendant Source. Man's opinion -- even those who might claim however rightly friendship with God -- can indeed stand in opposition to that Truth, but can never hope to usurp it.

That being said, we continue.

The Word of the Living God declares first that there is only One True God. The prophet Isaiah under the inerrant inspiration of God the Holy Spirit says, "'You are My witnesses,' says the LORD, 'and My servant who I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me." [Isaiah 43:10]

The Word of God also refers to Three distinct Persons (an admittedly clumsy term; not "three people," or "three entities," or "three gods," but Three "subsistences" of the One Being of God) as Each being in and of Himself the One True God. Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, is boldly and categorically declared to be God:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." [John 1:1-2, 14] But more on that point later.

Jesus is declared in the Word of God to be fully God and fully Man. It is not that He became "Godman," but rather that He is both God and Man at the same time. That is, He is One Person with Two Natures. These two natures (immutable Deity and perfect Humanity) coexist in the One Person of Jesus Christ without in any way mingling, or without any separation of Being or Person. This is perfectly consistent, logically.

Regardless, ultimately the Word of God says it is so, and so it is so, irrespective of our refusal to accept it or not.

1.To be son is to be less than divine and to be divine is to be no one’s son. How could Jesus have the attributes of sonship and divinity altogether?

This is known as the logical fallacy of equivocation -- taking a word meant in one way, redefining it, and then using it in another in a straw-man counterattack. "To be a son is to be less than divine" only stands if "to be a son" is understood in the natural, physical-generation fashion. That is, that God had relations with someone who got pregnant and gave birth to a son. This is not, however, what the Word of God means at all when it refers to Jesus as the "One and Only Son" of God. Jesus has always been the Son, from eternity past. Again, as John 1:1 puts it, He was "in the beginning with God," and was Himself "God." The tenses of the verbs employed in Greek directly imply that at the very absolute beginning of all things, Jesus already was in existence (eternally in existence), and He was distinct from yet of the same Being as the Father.

Jesus is not His own Son. He is the eternal Son of the Father, and Each of Them is in and of Himself the One True God. The statement" to be divine is to be no one's son" is rife with the logical fallacy of oversimplification (and thereby also erecting a straw man).

2.Christians assert that Jesus claimed to be God when they quote him in John 14:9: "He that has seen me has seen the Father". Didn’t Jesus clearly say that people have never seen God, as it says in John 5:37: "And the father himself which Has sent me, has borne witness of me. You have NEITHER HEARD HIS VOICE AT ANY TIME NOR SEEN HIS SHAPE"?

Yes, the Word of God asserts that Jesus claimed to be God, and that the rest of Scripture claims this as well, that is correct. I would hesitate to quote John 14:9 as a declaration of this, however, as this is not so much an attestation of Deity per se as it is a declaration of conformity with the Father's will. I would rather point to John 8:58, where Jesus says, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." That is an impossibly provocative statement to make, bearing in mind the following:

1. The phrase "I AM" translates the curious Greek construction, Ego Eimei, which means pretty much that. If all Jesus was meaning to say was that He preexisted Abraham, He could have used a simple past tense.

2. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, that phrase (Ego Eimei) was used to render Jehovah's declaration of Being to Moses in Exodus 3:14, "and God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' And He said, 'Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you."'" Jesus, by using this phrase, was emphatically claiming to be Jehovah Himself.

3. The Jews understood this declaration. Verse 59 says that "they took up stones to throw at Him." Capital punishment in the Law of Moses was limited to very specific crimes. The crime that fits in this instance is that of blasphemy -- claiming equality with (i.e., claiming identity as) God. Jesus' statement would indeed have been blashpemy if it weren't also true; that is, it wasn't blasphemy because He is God.

The prophet Isaiah says of Jesus that He is "...Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of peace..." [Isaiah 9:6] The Hebrew El Gibbor ("Mighty God") is a clear and unambiguous declaration of Deity; further, the other exalted titles of the LORD leave no room for confusion. "Everlasting Father" can better be rendered "Father of eternity," for instance. These titles are directly applied to the Child Who was to be born, the Son Who was to be given -- Messiah, Jesus, the Christ.

Our Mohammedian friend then tries to manufacture a contradiction in God's Word by pointing out that this Jesus Who is God told His disciples that no one had ever seen God. Actually, this cannot be understood at all outside of both a) a Trinitarian understanding of God, and b) a New Testament understanding of the Incarnation of Jesus. Let me explain.

Throughout the Bible it is declared that no man can see God and live. God is pure holiness, and for fallen man to stand in His Presence is for him to be obliterated. God does, however, interact with men. Abraham spoke with God; Moses spoke with God "face-to-face." Gideon trembled because of a close interaction with God. Israel wrestled with God by the River Jabbok. Joshua encountered a Being identified as the "Angel of the LORD" Who is in the Bible identified as being worthy of worship. None of these men saw God unveiled; but they did see God and interact with God in what is called "Theophany." A Theophany is when God manifests His Presence in a tangible way for the sake of man in order to interact with men. The ultimate Theophany was the Incarnation, when God Himself stepped out of eternity and into time, lived and walked among us, and then died in our place as our substitution, and for our salvation.

Also, remember that the One God of the Bible exists eternally in Three distinct Persons. Note John 1:18 which says, "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared him." The NIV, based on older and more accurate texts than the NKJV or KJV, puts it, "No one has seen God at any time, except God the One and Only." Jesus in the Incarnation, as the perfect Man, was able to mediate between an offended, holy God and helpless, fallen man. He alone was able to bridge that infinite chasm betwixt them. Jesus, being Himself God, alone was able to accurately manifest God to men. As Hebrews 1:1-3 says, "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high..."

3.Christians say that Jesus was God because he was called Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah, and "savior". Ezekiel was addressed in the Bible as Son of Man. Jesus spoke of "the peace makers" as Sons of God. Any person who followed the Will and Plan of God was called SON OF GOD in the Jewish tradition and in their language (Genesis 6:2,4; Exodus 4:22; Psalm 2:7; Romans 8:14). "Messiah" which in Hebrew means "God’s anointed" and not "Christ", and "Cyrus" the person is called "Messiah" or "the anointed". As for "savior", in II KINGS 13:5, other individuals were given that title too without being gods. So where is the proof in these terms that Jesus was God when the word son is not exclusively used for him alone?

Our Mohammedian friend yet again falls prey to equivocation, oversimplification, and outright straw man argumentation.

The Word of God says that Jesus is God, plainly and directly. John 1:1-4, 14 is the clearest, most insurmountable declaration of this; it can only be gotten around by ignoring it or changing it. Throughout the rest of Scripture He is upheld as the God of Israel. This is unassailable.

The terms "son of God" and "son of man" are indeed used of others than Jesus. They are not in and of themselves titles of deity. However, when applied to Jesus, they do indeed speak of His Deity -- and the Jews understood this emphatically. Note John 5:17 & 18: "But Jesus answered them, 'My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.' Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." Noted Christian commentator Chuck Missler has pointed out that whenever we Gentiles are in danger of missing the significance of some saying of Jesus or His disciples due to our non-Jewishness, the Pharisees are right there to save the day, in that they invariably will react in a strongly negative way that alerts us to the true meaning behind what is being said or done.

The term "Messiah" is also not a title of Deity in its general sense. Kings, prophets, and priests were anointed. Even I myself as a Christian am anointed -- anointed by God the Holy Spirit. But when used specifically of The Messiah, the term takes on overtones and undertones which bespeak plainly and eloquently of Deity. The Messiah, in the Old Testament, had titles and attributes ascribed to Him which are wholly unsuitable for any mere man. The prophet Isaiah refers to Him as "Immanuel," which would be a blasphemous title for any fallen mortal. The term identifies the bearer as "God with us." That the Jews (especially the Talmudic Jews) understood this is amply demonstrated by the exotic theories they came up with to explain away the apparent blasphemy involved with applying such titles to a mere man. (One of my favorites was the tendency for some to theorize Messiahship devolving not to one individual, but to the entire nation of Israel, who indeed had "God with them" in the Temple.) The prophet Isaiah, remember, refers to The Messiah as El Gibbor -- the Mighty God.

The same applies to the term "saviour." Others than Jesus can be and have been referred to as such. Anybody who saves you from anything is your "saviour." But when specifically applied to Jesus, the term again takes on a whole new set of implications. The prophet Isaiah records Jehovah as saying, "I, even I am the LORD, and besides Me there is no Savior. I have declared and saved, I have proclaimed, and there was no foreign god among you; therefore you are My witnesses,' says the LORD, 'that I am God. Indeed before the day was, I am He; and there is no one who can deliver out of My hand; I work, and who will referse it?" [Isaiah 43:11-13] The term "savior" is here not being used in its general, applies-to-anybody sense; it is being used in a very specific sense which can truly apply only to God Himself. That sense is that of saving one from his sin, from damnation. Only God and God only can save you thus. It is in this sense that the term is applied to Jesus (note the words and explanation by the angel Gabriel to Joseph: "...and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins" - Matthew 1:21). That the Jews understood the implications of this is readily observed in Matthew 9:1-8, where Jesus forgives the paralytic; in verse 3 we read, after Jesus declares the paralytic forgiven, "This Man blasphemes!" And indeed He would have been blaspheming, if He did not in fact have power to forgive sins -- if He were not in fact God Himself.

For both the terms "Messiah" and "Saviour," our Mohammedian friend's equivocation is understandable but still faulty. Like the term "president," it can be used in a general sense (president of a fan club, president over a meeting or comittee, etc.) or in a specific sense (the president of the United States of America). Even the word "god" means different things depending on context and attribution. Idols are "gods" in the general sense of those things which men worship; but they are not God (the God), in that they are not intrinsically worthy of that worship -- they are not the One True God. The word takes on a whole new meaning and far deeper implications when used in the specific sense rather than in the general. So too with Messiah and Saviour.

4.Christians claim that Jesus acknowledged that he and God were one in the sense of nature when he says in John 10:30 "I and my father are one". Later on in John 17:21-23, Jesus refers to his followers and himself and God as one in five places. So why did they give the previous "one" a different meaning from the other five "ones?

In the same way that I am a son of God through faith in Jesus, but Jesus is the Son. Or the way that I can be a senior technician (for instance), but there is one in the workshop who is the Senior Technician. Through faith in Jesus, I am indeed one with God; but Jesus is One with God in a way that I never can be. I am "one" through atonement and forgiveness; He is One by virtue of Being and Nature.

So yes, the Word of God certainly does emphatically state something similar to what our Mohammedian friend says here. However, let's strip away the straw to get at the meat of the question, and therefore answer it.

Just as with the terms Messiah and Saviour, this too can be used in the general sense (I am one with my wife through marriage) and in the specific sense (but I can never be "One" with her in the sense that Jesus is One with the Father, since we are separate beings; but Jesus and the Father are Each the One True God, and are not separate Beings). The Jews understood in John 10:30 that Jesus was claiming Deity. Note the very next verse and following: "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, 'Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those do you stone Me?' The Jews answered Him, saying, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God." [John 10:31-33] They understood what our Mohammedian friend seems to miss, that Jesus was not just applying oneness with God to Himself in the general, can-apply-to-anybody sense, but in the specific sense of claiming a Oneness of Being and Nature. He was thus claiming for Himself Deity, which would in fact be blasphemy if it weren't also true.

In the seventeenth chapter of John, Jesus is now praying for His disciples (which, through time, would include myself and all other true Christians), and He is praying that the Father would bind them together and to Himself as one. He is not asking the Father to make us gods, to have us share in His nature; rather, He is asking the Father to make us one in relationship and fellowship. Even the Talmudic Jews would have had no problem with that, as they believed they were "one" with God in that sense already by virtue of birth into the nation of Israel. The sense of the two passages is entirely different.

5.Is God three-in-one and one in three simultaneously or one at a time?

God is absolutely One. And this One God exists eternally as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Three Persons of the Godhead are not separated in any sense whatsoever; you cannot cut up the Being of God and say, "Aha! Here is the Son." Jesus is not one-third of God, nor part of God, but is in and of Himself the One True God, as is the Father and the Spirit. Yet Jesus is not the Father nor the Spirit.

This is not irrational. Even in nature we see examples of this very thing (which should not be surprising; see Romans 1:20). Note that the electron is simultaneously a particle, a waveform, and a quanta. It is not "one third" a particle; everything that the electron is is the particle; so too with the waveform and the quanta. It has always been and always will be thus, without division into three "things" called a particle, a waveform, and a quanta, and without confusion of those three into one particle-waveform-quanta mish-mash.

Therefore, God is One-in-Three simultaneously throughout eternity, without division of Being or confusion of Person. That is why Scripture refers to God as "He" and not "They," though when one of the Persons refers to Another He uses "You" and "Me," and when referring to two or more Persons simultaneously He uses "We."

6.If God is one and three simultaneously, then none of the three could be the complete God. Granting that such was the case, then when Jesus was on earth, he wasn’t a complete God, nor was the "father in Heaven" a whole God. Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus always said about His God and our God in heaven, his Lord and our Lord ? Does that also mean that there was no complete god then, between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?

We'll break this compound question down to answer it.

"If God is one and three simultaneously, then none of the three could be the complete God" Says you. This is an unfounded assertion, and all that is needed to counter an assertion is another assertion. I could very easily then just respond by saying, "Yes, He could." But in the interest of a full response, I will clarify:

The Word of God presents God as being One. There is only One God, not three gods or more. Three Persons are Each referred to as this One True God -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Not three gods, nor three parts of God, but One God eternally existing in Three absolutely indivisible Persons. Note first we do not say "three people," or "three beings," or "three entities," or "three individuals." Any of those would be tritheism and therefore heresy. The Persons of the Godhead -- the Father, the Son, and the Spirit -- are not separable in any fashion whatsoever. This is eloquently attested to in the very word used by Jesus to describe the Spirit as "another Helper" in John 14:16. The word is allos, which means "another of the same kind," rather than heteros, which would have introduced a separation between the Son and the Spirit, as it means "another [but of different, or only similar kind]".

For instance, speaking of the Son, the Word of God declares boldly that "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." [Colossians 2:9]

The Father is completely and wholly God; the Son is completely and wholly God; and the Spirit is completely and wholly God. And that without the Father also being the Son, or the Son being the Spirit.

"Granting that such was the case, then when Jesus was on earth, he wasn’t a complete God, nor was the 'father in Heaven' a whole God" Once that initial objection has been answered, the rest falls apart as all straw men do. When Jesus was on earth, He remained wholly and completely God. The Father also remained thus, as did the Spirit; this is because Jesus is not "one third of God" or "a part of God," but is in and of Himself the One True God. There was no separation between the Son and the Father of any sort whatsoever, as there is only One God, not two or three. Now, Jesus did take upon Himself full and perfect Humanity, and so He Incarnated Himself as a Man; but that is a separate issue. He did not cease to be God at any time.

"Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus always said about His God and our God in heaven, his Lord and our Lord?" Nope; not unless you're determined to make it so. There is only One God. Jesus is God. So too is the Father. When Jesus walked this earth, would we expect the perfect God not to acknowledge God? This was an instance of One Person of the Godhead referring to Another. Yet Jesus was neither talking to Himself, nor to another god. Again, using the Romans 1:20 analogy of nature, though the particle and waveform characteristics of the electron are mutually exclusive, what occurs to the electron as a waveform will affect it as a particle. This is because there aren't three electrons (in our mind experiment), but only one, which exists simultaneously as particle, waveform, and quanta.

"Does that also mean that there was no complete god then, between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?" There can be no such thing as an "incomplete God." God, by Nature, is immutable and unquantifiable. Jesus remained absolute Deity when He took upon Himself perfect Humanity. There are times in the Gospels when He speaks from the perspective of Humanity, and other times from the perspective of Deity. He is both, simultaneously.

Oh, and He remains both, simultaneously; He was raised bodily from the grave, and ascended into heaven bodily. He will return to judge the living and the dead, bodily.

7.If God is one and three at a time, then who was the God in heaven when Jesus was on earth? Wouldn’t this contradict his many references to a God in Heaven that sent him?

And the straw man continues to crumble.

Jesus is and was the God in heaven, even while walking this earth. He is both God and Man at the same time. He didn't cease to be God at His conception by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit in Mary.

8.If God is three and one at the same time, who was the God in Heaven within three days between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrect ion?

Jesus.

He remained God at all points. Even the historical fact of the crucifixion and the historical fact of the resurrection failed to abrogate that. Death is not the cessation of existence, but an altering of the mode of existence. Those who are dead are still conscious -- even our Mohammedian friend would admit that, as his own religion teaches a conscious, literal hell and conscious, literal heaven. Jesus was and is completely God and Man simultaneously, without the two Natures being confused and mingled into one "theanthropic" nature, or without there being two Jesuses. Jesus, the God of Israel, the Creator of the universe -- the Creator even of Mohammed himself -- remained God even while the Roman soldiers were nailing Him to the cross. He was sovereignly giving them even their very breath and heartbeat all the while. Without His willing it so, they would have ceased to exist. As the Word of God tells us, "He is the express image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities, or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and and in Him all things consist." [Colossians 1:15-17]

9.Christians say that: "The Father(F) is God, the Son(S) is God, and the Holy Ghost(H) is God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not the Father". In simple arithmetic and terms therefore, if F = G, S = G, and H = G, then it follows that F = S = H, while the second part of the statement suggests that F ¹ S ¹ H (meaning, "not equal"). Isn’t that a contradiction to the Christian dogma of Trinity in itself ?

Yes, the Word of God indeed clearly indicates that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, without the Father being the Son or the Spirit.

Our Mohammedian friend's logic is woefully faulty at this point. The "math", to use his base example, is not 1+1+1=1, but rather 1x1x1=1. The Father, Son, and Spirit are Persons of the One True God of the Bible. The term "Person" here is from the latin Persona, and does not refer to separate individuals, but to what in Greek would be called hypostases or "subsistences."

To use a crude analogy from everyday life, I am my father's son, my wife's husband, and my son's father. To put it in our Mohammedian friend's amusing algebra, that can be rendered FS(father's son)=M(me), WH(wife's husband)=M, and SF(son's father)=M. Yet though all three are true at the same time, it is apparent that unless I have some severe mental sickness which induces horrible perversion, I am not my son's father in the same way that I am my wife's husband. That relationship is wholly different, though I remain that coincident with being the husband. Likewise, I am not my son's father in the same way I am my father's son, though I am both at the same time. On the one hand, I am the progenitor and the authority figure; on the other, I am the child, and owe a debt of honor and respect. If I related to my son the way I relate to my father, I would be a horrible father; if I related to my father the way I relate to my son, I would not be an honoring or respectful son myself. It is therefore no contradiction at all to point out that though FS=M, WH=M, and SF=M, yet FS¹WH¹SF. They are all me, and all at the same time, but they are not synonymous with each other.

Within the One Being of God, the Father, Son, and Spirit Each wholly and completely are this One God, without being Each Other. God is not three people, three individuals, or three beings, else there would be three gods; God is One. One God only. One God existing eternally in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

10.If Jesus was God, why did he tell the man who called him "good master" not to call him "good" because accordingly, there is none good but his God in Heaven alone?

When did Jesus tell the man not to call Him "good?" The Jesus of the Bible in Matthew 19:17 asks the rich young ruler to consider carefully the implication of calling Him good (that is, the rich young ruler probably never really considered that by ascribing absolute goodness to Jesus, he was also ascribing Deity to Him). But this is a far cry from saying, "don't call Me good!" (Note by way of comparison John 10:1-21, where Jesus ascribes to Himself the title "good.") Our Mohammedian friend reads his own prejudice into the Text.

In the Word of God, people constantly worship Jesus, but He never tells them not to -- though to worship any other than God Himself is blasphemy. The Magi in Matthew 2:2 "are come to worship Him." Thomas in John 20:28 calls Jesus "my God," and Jesus observes that Thomas has "believed" rightly. In Matthew 8:2, a leper comes and worships Him. Instead of rebuking him, Jesus extends His hand and cleanses him. And in the Revelation, the scene in heaven is one of constant worship of Jesus and His Father. Etc.

11.Why do Christians say that God is three-in-one and one in three when Jesus says in Mark 12:29: "The Lord our God is one Lord" in as many places as yet in the Bible?

Our Mohammedian friend perhaps means to ask the valid question, "Why does the Word of God declare God to be One-in-Three? How is this so?"

The Word of God says in Deuteronomy 6:4 (where Jesus is quoting from), "Behold, o Israel; the LORD our God, the LORD is One." This is the great sh'ma of Israel, the Jewish confession of faith echoed by Christians. God is One. You will note, however, that this is precisely what the Word of God -- and Christians, who love and believe that Word -- say. God is One; and this One God exists eternally in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

One other thing to point out, the word "one" in Hebrew actually presupposes a Trinity! The word is echad, and while it means "one," it means so not in a simplistic, monolithic sense, but is a compound unity. When I say that I am "one" with my wife, for instance, in Hebrew I would say echad. There is another word entirely that specifically means monolithic singularity, as our Mohammedian friend seems to think it should say.

This is also prefigured in the very Name of God. The most common Name translated "God" from Hebrew is Elohim. Again, as with echad, this is a compound unity. El is the singular for the word for "god" (as in El Gibbor, one of the Names of Jesus, or El Elyon, "God Most High"); Eloah would be the "dual" sense. But Elohim is either an outright plural, or a compound unity. Whenever the Old Testament prophets spoke of "the gods," the word was elohim. When applied to the One True God of the Bible, however, the word emphasises His eternally amplified majesty, His transcendance, and His compound unity (i.e., that He is One God, eternally existing in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; or, "One-in-Three").

There are not three gods, nor three parts of god, but One God and One God only. And He is Jesus.

12.If belief in the Trinity was such a necessary condition for being a Christian, why didn’t Jesus teach and emphasize it to the Christians during his time? How were those followers of Jesus considered Christians without ever hearing the term Trinity? Had the Trinity been the spinal cord of Christianity, Jesus would have emphasized it on many occasions and would have taught and explained it in detail to the people.

Our Mohammedian friend makes two fatal mistakes here. One is that he assumes too much. He assumes that a full comprehension of the Trinity is a requirement for salvation. If that were so, no Christian would be saved, as none of us can ever get his hands completely around the concept, so to speak, any more than the particle physicist can ever completely wrap his mind around the fact that an electron is three things at the same time without being divided or separated into three spatially or temporally distinct things. Two, he assumes that Jesus didn't expound on Trinitarian concepts. Both are mistakes.

To the latter, Jesus went through great pains to point out both His Deity, and His distinction to (note: not separation from) the Father and the Spirit. He was so explicit that the Jews sought to stone Him on several occasions as recorded in the Word of God. Eventually, when He decreed that it was time for His sacrifice of Himself in our behalf, He allowed them to finally have power to take His earthly life. The express reason why, according to history as recorded in the Word of God, was the unified charge of "blasphemy." "He, being a Man, makes Himself God!" was the cry of the Jews, echoed by the Sanhedrin which ultimately condemned Him.

Yet this same Jesus went to incredible lengths to point out His relatioinship with His Father -- and the fact that He was not Him. Jesus prayed to the Father, spoke with the Father, did nothing but what the Father willed. At His baptism, the Father spoke out of heaven, and the Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove. This was not a great big ventriloquist act, with Jesus speaking to Jesus, and descending upon Himself.

13.Christians claim that Jesus was God as they quote in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". This is John speaking and not Jesus. Also, the Greek word for the first occurrence of God is HOTHEOS which means "the God" or "God" with a capital "G", while the Greek word for its second occurrence is "TONTHEOS", which means "a god " or "god" with a small "g". Isn’t this dishonesty and inconsistency on the part of those translating the Greek Bible? ? Isn’t such quotation in John 1:1 recognized by every Christian scholar of the Bible to have been written by a Jew named Philo Alexandria way before Jesus and John?

Our Mohammedian friend now moves into areas where he knows neither the terrain nor the way to go. Biblical ("koine") Greek is a language which we know a tremendous amount about. Koine is such a precise language that it is almost always very simple a task to determine what an author was actually saying. It is so precise, in fact, that one change of a letter changes the entire meaning of a word (the difference between theos, or "god", and theios, or "divinity" is apparent).

But before we tackle this, we need to deal with our Mohammedian friend's grossly faulty appeal to authority. He makes the sweeping claim that "John 1:1 [is] recognized by every Christian scholar of the Bible to have been written by a Jew named Philo Alexandria way before Jesus and John" This statement is disingenuous in the extreme. First, it is readily apparent that John was written by John -- early patristic attestation is unassailable. Irenaeus, in c. AD 185, bears witness to the Johannine authorship of John in his work Against Heresies. Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn the disciple of the venerable apostle. Modern liberal scholarship aside, which begins with the a priori assumption that no work claiming origin from God (including the Qu'ran!) actually is, since there is no God in the first place (their assumption), there is no serious question as to the authorship of either the passage or the Gospel in question. Most Greek scholars, whether Christian or not, recognize and properly translate John 1:1 as it reads in most Christian Bibles -- identifying Jesus as God. Even Unitarian Greek scholars, who deny Jesus' Deity, correctly render this verse, as the Greek construction is rather inescapable.

Secondly, while Philo (a Jewish historian seriously compromised by Platonic thought and given to pagan mysticism) certainly had a philosophy of what he termed the "Logos" (which in turn he borrowed from the Platonists), his use of the term and God's use of it in His Word are radically different. Philo used the term "Logos" to refer to an unspeakable, unknowable emmanation from the First Principle; God in His Word through the apostle John used the word to refer to the preincarnate Jesus. Jesus is the Logos, the Word, the exact expression of the nature of God, as He is Himself God. That is the gist of John's point in the first chapter of his Gospel. To insist that Philo is the originator of John 1 due to a superficial similarity in terminology is similar to the Christian apologist's assertion that "Allah" is the moon god due to the exact parallel between the construction of "Allah" and "al ilyah". (By the way; the gentleman's name was "Philo," and he was from Alexandria. He is properly referred to as "Philo of Alexandria," not "Philo Alexandria." Alexandria is not his last name.)

Now to the language issue our friend tries to raise itself: It is readily apparent at the outset that he must be copying this amusing statement from a Mohammedian tract or some other such thing, or that he is valiantly struggling to copy it down from memory. This is because neither word is Greek! What he means to be saying is that there is a distinction in John 1:1 between ton Theon and Theos. In Greek, John 1:1 reads:

En arch hn o LogoV, kai o LogoV hn proV ton Qeon, kai QeoV hn o LogoV.

Transliterated, that would read: "En arche en ho Logos, kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho Logos."

The distinction he is attempting to point out is between the two forms of the Greek word for God, namely ton Theon and Theos. Jehovah's Witnesses (a pseudochristian cult) in their exceptionally loose "translation," the NWT, render this as: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." The issue revolves around two things: the form of the word "God," and the use or lack thereof of the definite article. I do not have the space nor the time here to go into first-year Greek syntax; I will however highlight why it reads as it does.

First, the form of the noun is important. The difference is between the nominative and the accusative cases; Greek, like many languages, changes the word form depending on the syntax of it. Ton Qeon is in the accusative case, and QeoV is in the nominative.

Second, Greek only has one article -- the definite ("the"). There is no indefinite ("a"). The Greeks used that article, however, in a way not always directly parallel to the way we do in English. For instance, it is often used in conjunction with proper names, as a means of clarity in a sentence, or by way of emphasis. ("Peter" is sometimes rendered in Greek tou Petrou; note the article tou). The presence of an article does not demand the translation into English of "the," as it can often be simply grammatical gloss; likewise, its absence does not demand the translation of "a". All depends tightly on context and syntax.

John 1:1 is actually more of almost a compound sentence, composed of three sentence-clauses. The third sentence-clause, kai Theos en ho Logos, resides in context after the clause kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon. Without going into boring grammatical detail, what we are seeing here is what is known as "predicate nominative" construction. The third sentence-clause is inextricably tied to the second, and amplifies it (very basically). As such, the clause must read as it does in order to say what it is translated to say; any other construction would destroy what John is trying to get across -- namely, that Jesus is God ("...and the Word was God"). To be translated "was a god," it would need to read, "kai ho Logos en theos." The anarthrous structure ("anarthrous" means "without the article") is demanded by its position in the predicate of the compound sentence and its relationship with what went before.

This is so obvious, that no translation of John 1:1 ever renders it otherwise, unless there is already a discernible a priori rejection of Jesus' Deity. The second-century fathers readily understood what was meant by John, and wrote volumes expounding upon it. And it was to John 1:1 that the orthodox scholars would point to during the great Arian debate to argue for Jesus being "of the same substance with" the Father, and not merely "of a similar substance."

Our Mohammedian friend would do well to actually learn the Greek language before trying to expound on the Greek language and go against nearly twenty centuries of unified translation of such passages as John 1:1.

14.Wasn’t the word "god" or "TONTHEOS" also used to refer to others as well as in II Corinthians 4:4 "(and the Devil is) the god of this world" and in Exodus 7:1 "See , I have made thee (Moses ) a god to Pharaoh"?

As pointed out above, our Mohammedian friend is less than learned in the Greek language, to make and continue to use such amusing arguments like these. There is no Greek word "TONTHEOS." Even if you were to break that down into "TON" and "THEOS," and say that "TON" is the Greek article, and "THEOS" is god, he still would be grossly incorrect, since the correct construction of the article for theos is ho, not ton. It would be almost as bad grammar as in English saying, "I ain't got no money."

Yes, ho theos is used of others than the One True God of Israel, just like the word in English ("god") is used of others than He. But again, just as in English, when the word "God" is applied to the One True God, it meas something very different than the word "god" when applied to aught else. The devil is the "god of this world," as the Word of God declares; he is so in the same sense that money or sex are gods. They are the controlling influences. But neither the devil nor money or sex are the One True God of the Bible.

Our Mohammedian friend further betrays his lack of familiarity with the Bible in trying to draw support from Moses (he cites Exodus 7:1). Exodus wasn't even written in Greek! It was written in classical Hebrew, and as such, there is no mention at all of ho theos, much less "TONTHEOS." The word is el. In Hebrew, el can be translated "god," "judge," or even "strong."

Further, God's words to Moses are really a slam on Pharaoh, who considered himself to be a god; God effectively was putting Moses in a position over even Pharaoh, and thus if Pharaoh continued with the contention that he was a god, then the logical ramifications of Moses having absolute power over him would be untenable. This is widely recognized by Jewish and Christian scholarship.

SALVATION:

Christians say that "GOD LOST His only son to save us". To whom did God lose Jesus if he owns the whole universe?

Who are these "Christians" our Mohammedian friend continues to refer to? They are woefully ignorant of the very faith they claim to profess, if they are in fact real and not just rhetorical constructs employed by himself!

God never "lost" anything. Jesus Himself boldly declares that even the power given to the Romans to crucify Him was given to them by Himself. Jesus in John 10:18 says about His life, "no one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." Later, before Pilate, He exclaims: "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above." [John 19:11] As Jesus says in John 15:13, "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends."

15. If it was agreeable with God’s Majesty to have sons, He could have created a million sons the like of Jesus. So what is the big clear deal about this only son?

Again, our Mohammedian friend betrays his nearly complete lack of familiarity with the very Bible he is railing against. God did not "have" a son. He does not procreate. Jesus is the Eternal Son of the Father. There has never been a time when Jesus was not, nor will there ever be such a time. Again, going back to John 1:1, the infinitive tense of the verb en directly implies continual preexistence (so much so that the first verse of John has been more literally translated, "In the beginning, the Word already existed..."). Jesus -- the Son -- is not a separate being from the Father; He is not another god, nor is He "part of God;" He is in and of Himself the One True God, as much as the Father is. It is pure straw man argumentation to assert otherwise.

Jesus' Sonship is not in the least tied to any concept of generation. In fact, the very term translated "Only-Begotten" by the KJV/NKJV/NASB is far better rendered in the NIV as "One and Only" or "Unique." The word actually has nothing to do with generation, but with position and quality. Just as God's Fatherhood over us has nothing to do with His having sexual relations with anyone to produce us. It speaks of His position and His relationship with us, not our physical lineage to Himself.

Jesus is not created; He is the Creator. [Colossians 1:16]

The "big deal" about Jesus' Unique Sonship is that He is Himself Deity, and He took on Himself human flesh in order to die in place of sinful man to redeem him. That is the "big deal."

16.Why does the Bible say that Jesus wanted to die on the cross, when the one on the cross was shouting "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" according to Matthew 27:45 and Mark 15:33?

Where does it say "Jesus wanted to die on the cross?" Jesus willingly died on the cross, but that is a far cry from saying that He wanted to die on it. God is no divine masochist, looking for every opportunity to suffer. He did not "want" to die on the cross. In fact, three times in the Garden of Gesthemane, He prayed fervently to the Father that if it were possible for the cup to pass from Him. But there was no other way for man to be reconciled to a holy God. Sin had been committed, and God could not have just swept it under the rug. He is love, yes, but He is also just and holy. The just penalty for sin -- death -- had to be paid. God in His unthinkable love, stepped out of eternity and into time, taking upon Himself human flesh, in order to pay that penalty in our place. He and He only was uniquely qualified to do this; as Man, Jesus was qualified to be our representative; as God, He had the power to save. This is the God we love and serve as Christians...

As far as Jesus' cry from the cross, Eli, Eli; lama sabacthani! Jesus' Humanity was as real and complete as His Deity. Ultimately, it is a mystery, all of what went on that dark, terrible, wonderful day; but Jesus really suffered in our place and really died.

17. If God had wanted to save us, couldn’t He have done that without sacrificing Jesus?

How? Sin demands the penalty of death. If God just turns His back on what we have done, He is something less than perfectly just. If He then went and left us to die for our own sins, He would be less than perfectly loving. Him coming in the flesh and dying in our place satisfied both His love and His justice.

I am fascinated to hear how our Mohammedian friend proposes that God could have satisfied both His love and His justice without Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice...? And I am quite sure that God would like to know, as well, since when Jesus prayed "if it be possible" the Divine response was that it wasn't. Our friend is surely far wiser than God...

18. God is Just, and justice requires that nobody should be punished for the sins of others, nor should some people be saved by punishing other people. Doesn’t the claim that God sacrificed Jesus to save us because He was Just, contradict the definition of justice?

How would it? It would be a contradiction only if Jesus was merely human. If He were merely human, then He Himself would also be under the curse and worthy of death. But He is not merely human; He is also God. He was the sinless sacrifice.

God's Word never says that people would never be saved by punishing other people -- our Mohammedian friend betrays his fairly consistent penchant for reading his own prejudice into the Word. God's Word speaks of the concept of the substitutionary sacrifice from the very beginning. That was the whole point of the animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law. The innocent lambs and bulls and goats were killed instead of the sinful Israelites so that their sin could be expiated and they could continue in fellowship with Jehovah. This is completely fulfilled in Jesus' sacrifice of Himself as our substitute, as the spotless Lamb.

19. People sacrifice things they have to get something they don’t have when they can’t have both. Christians say that "God SACRIFICED His only son to save us". We know that God is Almighty; to whom did He sacrifice Jesus?

This is equivocation in its most classic form. Our Mohammedian friend imposes a definition of "sacrifice" which is not in view in the Word of God's definition of the same, and insists on his misdefinition to make his point.

"Sacrifice" does not mean "to give up something to get something you don't already have." Wrong definition. "Sacrifice," in the sense of the Old and New Testaments, is entirely substitutionary. That is, the sacrifice was slain in the stead of the guilty sinner, so that the debt for his sin could be expiated and he himself not be required to bear that penalty (and thus himself be killed). It was wholly and act of undeserved mercy on the part of our loving God.

Jesus did not sacrifice Himself "to" anybody; rather, He sacrificed Himself for the whole world. That is, He sacrificed Himself in the place of the whole world; entirely different concept.

20. A real sacrifice is when you can’t get back what you have offered , so what would be the big deal about such a sacrifice if God could recover the same offering? (according to the Christians’ terminology)?

Again, we are left to wonder who these "Christians" are to whom our Mohammedian friend continues to refer. We can only conclude that he is using a rhetorical construction, and is not in fact referring to any real persons. Or else he has found the most impossibly ignorant persons available who claim the name "Christian;" either way, he builds an impressive straw man to knock down, but true dialog and debate are not served by straw man argumentation.

A "real" sacrifice has nothing to do with recovering anything or not. The "giving up" of a thing is not the issue in Jewish/Christian theology as it is in pagan theology. Rather, the issue with sacrifice is substitution. Jesus' death in our place was real and total; He really died, He was really buried, and therefore He really had to be raised from the dead to complete our redemption (speaking of Jesus, "...who was delivered up because of our offenses, and raised because of our justification." [Romans 4:35]). His resurrection prefigures and guarantees our resurrection.

21. If all the Christians are saved through Jesus and are going to Heaven no matter what they do, then the teachings of Jesus are irrelevant and the definition of good and bad are also rendered irrelevant. If this is not so, then do Christians who believe in Jesus yet do not follow his teachings nor repent go to Hell?

This is a two-part question.

The first part is, "If all the Christians are saved through Jesus and are going to Heaven no matter what they do, then the teachings of Jesus are irrelevant and the definition of good and bad are also rendered irrelevant." How so? Asserting a thing is not the same as proving a thing.

This line of reasoning fails on at least two points. First, it assumes wrongly that salvation is given as a reward for good work. The entire point of God's Word, including the very giving of the Law itself, is to point out plainly that man is wholly unworthy of salvation and cannot ever earn it; it is a free gift to be received by faith ("...knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believe in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." [Galatians 2:16]).

Second, it assumes wrongly that the Christian's conduct after salvation is irrelevant. This is similar to the grossly faulty line of reasoning employed by Paul's Jewish detractors, when he says, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?... Likewise you also, reckon yourselves dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether ofsin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?" [Romans 6:1-2, 11-16]

What we do -- our good works -- are not the cause of our salvation, but they are the necessary result of salvation. A truly saved, regenerate person will have a new nature, indwelt by the Holy Spirit Himself, and will outwork his new position in Jesus ("I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." [Galatians 2:20]).

The second part is "If this is not so, then do Christians who believe in Jesus yet do not follow his teachings nor repent go to Hell?" Christians by definition are repentant, so the question at the outset is already invalid. However, to answer the spirit of the question more fully, when Jesus saves you, He saves you "to the uttermost." Salvation is His free gift to me; I cannot loose it, for I could never earn it to begin with. When He saved me, He sent His Spirit to indwell me; His Spirit now gives me the power and desire to live godly -- as the Word of God says, "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." [Philippians 2:13]

22. How can Christians take deeds as irrelevant after becoming one when Jesus says in Matthew 12:36; "But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment. For by the words thou shalt be justified, and by the words thou shalt be condemned"?

We are yet again left wondering who these "Christians" are to whom our Mohammedian friend keeps on referring. As we have already quoted from God's Word, deeds are far from "irrelevant." The question is the meaning of their relevance. The Word of God declares that deeds are not the effective cause of salvation (and therefore it can indeed be said they are "irrelevant" as far as attaining salvation is concerned), but also declares that they are the necessary result of our salvation (and therefore, they are vitally relevant after salvation, as a witness to and outward demonstration of salvation).

Our Mohammedian friend continues to fight against a straw man...

23. Christians say that people go to Heaven ONLY THROUGH JESUS, yet Paul says in 1 CORINTHIANS 7:8-16 that the unbelieving husband is acceptable to God because he is united with his wife and vice versa, and their pagan children are also acceptable to God. So people can go to heaven without believing in Jesus according to this.

Our Mohammedian friend here betrays his lack of basic reading comprehension. The Word of God says this: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean; but now they are holy." [I Corinthians 7:14]

Note first that "acceptable" is nowhere in the verse. Nor is the concept of salvation ("going to heaven") anywhere present. Our friend here yet again inserts his own prejudice into the Text, and thus grossly misconstrues it.

Second, the word is "sanctified." That word in both Greek and Hebrew speaks of being "set apart." God promises to bless His children. When one of His children is married to a heathen, that heathen is both "set apart" for special witness, and partakes of God's blessing on his spouse. So too the children. Children of unbelievers (as I was) have a far worse go of it then the children of believers. All this has to do with the concept of the covenant God has made with us, which would be far too cumbersome to tackle in this short space; however, suffice it to say our friend has failed to understand the verses he's railing against, and so has set up a very nice straw man with which to spar.

24. How come the Bible says that ALL Israel is saved although they don’t believe in Jesus? Doesn’t that contradict the claim in the Bible that the only way to heaven is through Jesus?

Where does the Bible say that "ALL Israel is saved?"

25. According to Christians, those who have not been baptized will go to Hell. So even the infants and babies go to Hell if not baptized, since they are born with an inherited original sin. Doesn’t this contradict the definition of justice? Why would God punish people for sins they never committed?

Again, where does the Bible say "those who have not been baptized will go to Hell... even the infants and babies go to Hell if not baptized"? That statement is nowhere in God's Word, nor is it implied anywhere.

In fact, no less an authority than Jesus Himself told the repentant theif on the cross that "today you will be with Me in Paradise." [Luke 23:43] The thief was not baptized.

Our Mohammedian friend assumes that baptism is necessary for salvation. But as he already has admitted, the Word of God declares that it is faith in Jesus alone which is the sole requirement for salvation. Baptism is our response to the already-happened fact of salvation, our outward, public testimony of it. Water baptism is an outward declaration of the inner baptism which occurs at salvation -- as Peter proclaims in I Peter 3:21 "There is also an antitype which now saves us -- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Our friend is rapidly straying farther and farther from reality, and interloping farther and farther into a strange world of his own construction!

HOLY SPIRIT:

The only place in the Bible where the Paraclete was called the Holy Spirit is in John 14:26 "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you". What has the Holy Spirit brought or taught for the last 2000 years?

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God [the word "inspiration" is theopneustos, and means "God-breathed;" the word for "spirit" in Greek is pneustos] and is profitable for doctrine [that means "teaching"], for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." [II Timothy 3:1617]

"But the anointing [circumlocution for the Holy Spirit] which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him." [I John 2:27]

Scripture itself is the product of the Holy Spirit. The Word declares that the natural (i.e., "unsaved") man cannot comprehend Scripture, and that he needs the Holy Spirit (i.e., "salvation") to understand it. The Holy Spirit illumines His Scripture.

Our Mohammedian friend is probably leading up to a common claim among the less educated members of the Mohammedian religion that Mohammed himself is the "paraclete." Were that so, Mohammed's religion would be indistinguishable from the Biblical faith; yet were that so, we would not be having this debate, now would we?

(Oh, by the way, the "Paraclete" is only identified as the Spirit in Scripture.)

26.Christians say that the Paraclete means the Holy Spirit (John 14;26). Jesus said in John 16:7-8 "If I do not go away the Paraclete will not come to you". This could not mean the Holy spirit, since the Holy spirit was said to have been there before Jesus was even born as in Luke 1:41 "Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit". Here, the Holy spirit was also present during Jesus life time. So how could this fit with the condition that Jesus must go away so that the Holy spirit will come?

Yes, the Word of God says that the "Paraclete" is the Holy Spirit (the word parakaleo itself does not "mean" the Holy Spirit; it means "advocate," or "called-alongside-one" and speaks more of His indwelling and upholding ministry than anything else).

And yes, Jesus' words are correct. Again, Jesus is God. He being God is omnipresent -- even before His Incarnation. While He was in the grave, He was still omnipresent, ruling the universe in power and majesty. This is because, again, He is both Man and God at the same time. The Holy Spirit is also God, and is omnipresent. He is "in" everybody, since He pervades His creation. Psalm 139 gives eloquent testimony to the Holy Spirit's omnipresence when it says, "Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?" [Psalm 139:7]

However, Jesus is not referring to His omnipresence. He is referring to something entirely else. Though the Spirit, being God and thus omnipresent, is "in" everybody, He indwells only those who are saved by faith in Jesus. That indwelling ministry was not inaugurated until Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 2, when the Spirit was "poured out" in a new way, in end times ministry. This indwelling ministry will come to an end, as we learn in II Thessalonians 2:7 "For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way." The Spirit's indwelling Presence will be removed from this earth prior to the final seven-year Tribulation period recorded in the Book of Revelation. And since He is promised to "never leave us [Christians] nor forsake us," we know that we too will be removed in what Christians call the "Rapture."

However, it is readily evident after the slightest bit of consideration that this fits just fine with the condition that Jesus must go away (i.e., ascend to the Father's side) before the Holy Spirit be poured out in this way. We struggle to try to find the contradiction that our Mohammedian friend seems to assume is there...

27.In John 16:7-8, it says: "But if go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world of sins and of righteousness and of Judgment". What do "he" and "him" refer here? Don’t they refer to a man?

No, but the "He" is clearly identified in the thirteenth verse: "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth."

28.Does the Holy Spirit talk to good Christians and bad Christians as well? Is the Holy spirit with them all the time or just at certain times? When does it start visiting a person who wants to become a Christian?

First, He is a "He", not an "it." The Holy Spirit is God; He is referred to with masculine pronouns (even though in Greek that would be bad grammar, as pneumas is grammatically a neuter noun; God wastes not even the pronouns in emphasizing His Personhood and His Deity) and referred to in personal ways.

Second, the Spirit is the "seal" of salvation ("In Him you also trusted, after you heart the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory." [Ephesians 1:13]). As such, He will never depart -- even from a "bad" Christian.

However, it is plain also that He is in the business of taking "bad" Christians and through sanctification making them "good" ones. If a man claims the name "Christian" but remains unregenerate, then he is "Christian" in name only and not in reality.

29.How can you as a Christian tell if the Holy Spirit is inside another Christian? How come many Christians fooled people by claiming that the Holy spirit was inside them only to be converted to another religion later on ?

Simple: I can't. To boot, I'm not supposed to. I am directed not to sit in judgment over another, but to exhort all on to good works -- Christian and heathen alike. The only person I know of for sure who has the Holy Spirit is myself.

On that note, there are good indications that someone else has the Spirit, and therefore salvation. Namely, His fruit [Galatians 5:22-25].

People who claim to be Christians are not necessarily so. I can claim to be the president of the United States all day long, but if I'm not then I'm just not, irrespective of my claim.

30.Does the Holy Spirit dictate what Christians should do without choice or freedom at all or does it only guide them and they have the freedom to follow or not ?

Again, the Holy Spirit is a "He" not an "it."

The first thing the Holy Spirit does at salvation is the act known as "regeneration." He takes your heart of stone and gives you a heart of flesh; that is, He doesn't rehabilitate you, you are given a whole new nature, with new (i.e., "unfallen") desires and motives. This is what Jesus is referring to when He told Nicodemus that in order to seek the Kingdom of God he must be "born again."

31.If the Holy Spirit dictates what Christian should do, why do Christians commit sins and make mistakes ? How can you explain the conversion to other religions and atheism of many Christians? Are they told to do that by the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit -- God -- never usurps the free will of His creatures. He does, however, give us a new nature, with a new will. The Christian will still sin, but he is immediately convicted of that sin by the Spirit, Who is in the process of sanctifying him. I John 1:8-9 speaks of this.

Everyone is "free," but is free in keeping with their nature. God, for instance, is free. However, just like His creatures, He is free in keeping with His Nature. He is holy, and cannot "not" be holy. He is Truth, and therefore cannot sin. It is not that He continually chooses not to sin, and therefore is holy as a byproduct; rather, He is innately holy, and therefore continually does not sin.

32.If the Holy Spirit guides Christians only, and they are free to do what they want, then how do we know that the writers of the Gospels didn’t make mistakes in writing them?

Equivocation. Our Mohammedian friend is quite fond of that particular logical fallacy.

He is referring to two distinct subjects and conflating them into one. The Spirit, in His indwelling, sanctifying ministry to New Testament Christians is progressively changing us from within -- changing our very desires as we draw closer to Him and more in love with Jesus. The inspiration, however, though similar in nature is different nonetheless. The indwelt Christian can indeed sin; the human writer of Scripture, however, was superintended, and therefore is free from error.

Remember that II Timothy 3:16-17 pointed out that all Scripture is theopneustos -- "God-breathed." This inspiration extends not merely to the concepts, but to the very words of Scripture.

II Peter 1:19-20 tells us, "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

33.If Christians believe that the Holy Spirit comes and talks to them everyday, why don’t they ask the Holy Spirit about which version of the Bible to follow since there are too many versions floating around?

Truly? One is left mystified as to what our Mohammedian friend is attempting to refer to here.

If he means that there are many Bibles floating around, then he surely has some proof to back that up -- proof that has been in absolute nonexistence since the times of the apostles! Our friend also then demonstrates himself to be a far more successful archaeologist/historian than any who have gone before him!

If instead he is meaning to say that there are many different translations of God's Word floating around, he would be entirely correct. There are. Which one to use? Any of them which translate what the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic which the Spirit actually inspired would do. The best and most accurate in English are the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the NIV, the RSV, the ASV, and to a more limited extent the NRSV. In other languages many fine translations are available as well.

All translate, however, the selfsame Bible. The differences primarily stem from the fact that Greek and Hebrew are vastly different from English (Greek, for instance, has an entire voice which English lacks -- the middle). The bulk of the differences, then, stem from different positions and presuppositions taken in the task of translation.

Please allow me to illustrate using an example of translating a Spanish term into English.

If I take the Spanish question ¿Donde esta el casa de Pepe? and translated it into English, right off the bat I have to decide how literal I want to be. There are three general choices available to me: Complete Equivalence, Dynamic Equivalence, and Paraphrase.

In Complete Equivalence, I seek to be as strictly literal as possible without doing too much violence to the receptor language, translating over as directly as I can. In the case of the Spanish phrase above, I would render it "Where is the house of Pepe?" Note the somewhat choppy nature of the translation, as well as the transliteration of the proper name. The KJV, NKJV, ASV, and NASB are all Complete Equivalence translations.

In Dynamic Equivalence, I seek to translate not merely the words but the sense of the words into the receptor language. In the case of the Spanish phrase, I could render it, "Where is Pepe's house?" "Where is Peter's house?" "Where is Peter's home?" or "Where does Peter live?" depending on just how dynamic I am willing to get in the translation. This is a perfectly acceptable translational method, but can be dangerous in that the prejudices of the translators can creep in and corrupt it. The NIV and NRSV are Dynamicaly Equivalent translations.

In Paraphrase, the perceived sense of the passage is paramount. Our Spanish phrase could be rendered, "Where's Pete's pad?" or even "Yo, where be Paco's crib, man?" These are not really very good translations, and are useful really only as commentaries. The Message, the Living Bible, and others of this kind are representative of the Paraphrase method.

Ultimately, you should choose a translation that is accurate and faithful to the original. We recommend the KJV, NKJV, NASB and NIV. There is such a vast amount of Bible study tools available that the ordinary Christian can also dig into the original Greek and Hebrew -- which is strongly recommended, so that you're not taking any mere man's word for what God has said, but you get into it for yourself and let the Spirit Himself directly teach you from His inerrant Word.

MISSION OF JESUS:
 

Without borrowing from other religions and systems, can Christianity provide people with a complete way of life? Since Christianity is limited to spiritual life and does not provide law, how can a society decide which laws are right or wrong?

Again, we are left absolutely mystified as to what our Mohammedian friend is trying to mean. "Christianity is limited to spiritual life?" Our friend betrays his absolute unfamiliarity with the Word of God.

The Western world is rich in the history of Christians affecting and forming governments and laws based on the Word of God and what it says. God's Word is quite explicit in what God requires of nations as well as of individuals. The Bible speaks to every facet of life -- from legislation and judication to family life to modesty in dress. We can only assume that our friend has never opened a Bible on his own and actually read one through.

34.Why do the Christians say that Jesus came with a universal mission when he said that he was sent to the Jews only? He said to the Canaanite woman who asked him to heal her daughter from demon-possession: "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel" and also said: "It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs", Matthew 15:21-28

Yet again, our Mohammedian friend leaves us with the distinct impression that he has never actually read the Bible.

Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. As such, His offer of salvation was first to the Jew -- and then to the Gentile. That has always been God's plan. Israel was to be a witness nation.

Further, our friend misses Jesus' whole point. Note His very next words: "Then Jesus answered and said to her, 'O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire'” And her daughter was healed from that very hour." Jesus came as the Jewish Messiah; part-and-parcel with that was the concept of being the Redeemer of the whole world.

Note Jesus' words in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in Him would not perish but have everlasting life."

RESSURECTION:
 

If you read Matthew (28:1-10), Mark (16:1-20), Luke (24:1-12), and John (20: 1-18), you will find contradicting stories. They all agreed that the tomb was guarded for three days. However, they reported the discovery of the empty tomb differently.

And yet again, our Mohammedian friend leaves us deeply confused. Where are the "contradicting stories?" Let's examine our dear friend's "contradictions:"

• Matthew (28) and John (20) reported that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the first to discover the tomb.
• Mark (16) reports that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome were the first to discover the empty tomb.
• Mark (28) reports that there was an earthquake that removed the rock from over the tomb. He says that an angel caused it. The other gospels do not mention of an earthquake.
• Matthew and Mark say that only ONE man in white clothes was sitting on the tomb when the woman arrived, and that he was an angel.
• Luke says that TWO men in white clothes, who were angels, were sitting. Johns says that the two women did not meet anybody the first time they came to the tomb, but when they returned, they saw TWO people, ONE was an ANGEL, and the other was JESUS.
• Matthew reports that when the guards reported this to the chief priest, the chief priest paid them a large sum of money, telling them: "You have to say that his disciples came at night and stole his body." He claims that the soldiers took money and spread the story around and since then, the story had been circulating among the Jews until today (according to Matthew). The other gospels do not report of any such thing.

Our friend fails to list a single contradiction.

If he is attempting to suggest that Matthew & John contradict Mark in listing who went to the tomb first, we can only assume that he sees something there that no one else does. Is he referring to the fact that Matthew and John don't mention Salome? That is hardly a contradiction! Matthew and John would be contradictory to Mark if they said Salome was not at the Tomb, or that that the two Marys were the only ones at the tomb; but they say no such thing.

We can only assume further that our friend, for some inscrutable reason, feels that Matthew, Luke, and John's lack of commentary about the mechanism for removing the stone means that they are contradicting Mark. How he arrives at this conclusion, however, is anyone's guess. He would be correct of the other three witnesses stated that there was another mechanism for the removal -- but they don't, and so no contradiction exists. Mark merely adds a detail the other three don't -- which is one of the reasons why the Holy Spirit chose to inspire four Gospel writers instead of just one.

As touching the angels, our friend is reaching way beyond the Text in order to try to concoct a contradiction. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all unified in their testimony as to the events of Resurrection morn. Matthew and Mark do not anywhere say that "only one angel" was present; they simply report only one -- the one who was speaking. John also does not anywhere say that "nobody met them the first time they came to the tomb." He simply does not provide that information which the other Gospel writers do. John further provides an account of a later visit to the tomb by Mary.

Finally, we are thoroughly stumped as to how our friend imagines that Matthew's account is somehow contradictory to the other Gospel writers. He provides information the other three were not privvy to, to be sure; however, that is hardly a contradiction.

Our friend has obviously never read more than one newspaper account about the same incident. Two reporters writing from two vantage points from two different perspectives will often provide different -- not contradictory by any stretch of the imagination, but merely complimentary -- accounts of the same incident. One will provide information the other didn't, and the other will flesh out with details an item the one merely skimmed over. This is why it is wise to read more than one account of the same incident, and also one of the reasons the Holy Spirit chose four Gospel writers rather than one.

Any good harmony of the Gospels would have dispelled our friend's baffling objections. Nearly twenty centuries of often sharp investigation into the Resurrection accounts, and their absolute trustworthiness, still stands.

35. Which narration now is more authentic?

Yes.

36.Why is the appearance of Jesus after the crucifixion taken as a proof of his resurrection when there is an explanation that he was not dead because someone else was crucified in his place when God saved Him?

Which explanation would that be, pray tell? Our Mohammedian friend probably refers to his Qu'ran and Hadith, which post date the Word of God's account as recorded in the Gospel by nearly seven centuries. Which actually brings up why the Qu'ran cannot be taken to be valid Scripture, as it blatantly contradicts true Scripture as recorded in the Word of God.

Second, our Mohammedian friend has with one stroke of his proverbial pen dismissed an insurmountable body of evidence, by simple, fideistic fiat. His blind faith can be construed as admirable, but it is blind, and contrary to fact.

The fact that Jesus truly died and rose again is an indelible fact of history. First and foremost, God records it so inerrantly and permanently in His Word. Second, and only slightly less impressive, is the fact that these facts of history are absolutely unassailable. This has been the turning point for several men who began trying to disprove the Resurrection, and wound up Christians because they could not.

Note: If Jesus did not rise again, how does one explain the radical change in the disciples, from before the Resurrection to after? These men, timid enough to flee in the face of a little opposition, after seeing the risen LORD were fearless and tireless, and all of them suffered horribly for the truth of the Gospel. All but John were martyred after lives of want and pain.

If the Romans actually had the body, or the disciples mistook the tomb, they could easily have killed Christianity in the cradle by simply presenting the body for open examination. This they did not do because this they could not do; the body wasn't there. It was as the angel said: "He is not here, because He is risen as He said!" All the tumult and headache the Roman Empire had to endure because of those precocious Christians could readily have been eliminated by presenting the body.

If the Jews had the body, or knew of its whereabouts, why the absolute silence about it? Again, to kill Christianity in the cradle, and show the Apostles to be frauds, all that was needed was for them to present the body. Yet they didn't, because they couldn't.

And if, as our dear friend attempts to suggest, "someone else was crucified in His place," why not present this "someone else's" body for open examination to show that it was not, in fact, Jesus? Going back further, how could this "someone else" have fooled His close friends -- and even His mother! -- when they conversed with Him during His final moments on the cross? We applaud our Mohammedian friend's blind faith in his Qu'ran to believe against all fact and history that this fact and history is in fact false; but we note with no small amount of fascination that this faith is blind, and stands in utter opposition to reality and fact.

37.How did Matthew know of the claimed agreement between the soldiers and the chief priest? Can’t someone say that someone paid the women a large sum of money and told them to spread the word around that Jesus rose from the dead, with the same authenticity as that of the story of Matthew?

Having been unable to present a real contradiction, our friend reaches even farther. Quite simply, we don't know how Matthew came to be privvy to this information. The mechanics, however, are hardly relevant. We can easily speculate that Joseph of Arimathea, a Sanhedrin member, reported it to him. Or that Nicodemus, another Sanhedrin member, reported it. Again, the mechanics are irrelevant to the factuality of the account.

The account is further vindicated by the fact that Matthew completed his Gospel around AD 40. There is abundant evidence that within five years it was already widely published throughout the Empire. The account was out for all to read, and for anybody to rise up with a contradiction. What do we find in the rich history of Talmudic tradition? Absolute silence. Roman history? Absolute silence. It is a terribly important thing to note that of all the people of the first and second centuries who rose up against Christianity, upon examining their arguments we read very eloquent diatribes against Christianity -- but absolutely nothing attacking the historicity of the Resurrection accounts. Those were taken for granted due to the overwhelming evidence.

Yes, someone could have paid off the women; but again, why not then produce the body later to kill Christianity? How to explain the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus?

The burden of proof lies heavily on our friend to prove his point -- a burden he does not seem to be bearing up under well.

38.Why did they believe that man in the white clothes? Why did they believe he was an angel? John’s narration is too strange, since he says that Mary did not recognize Jesus (one of the two) while talking to him, and she only recognized him when he called her by her name.

Unable to assail God's Word on the basis of fact, our friend now seems to be turning to his aesthetic preference! Why is John's account "too strange?" The particulars are easily understood. Jesus was in His Resurrection body; John makes it plain that, for instance, Jesus veiled the disciples' eyes until He was ready to reveal Himself. Is this so hard to accept? He is God, and surely capable of such! The Qu'ran speaks of Mohammed's "Allah" causing a camel to leap out of a rock and become a prophet! [Surah 7:73-77, 85; 91:14; 54:29] Talk about "strange!" We are flattered that our friend seems quite willing to hold the Bible to a higher standard than his own Qu'ran; but we feel it vital to point out that it is a double-standard.

Again, all our friend needs to do to prove "the man in the white clothes" or "John's narration" faulty and ahistorical is to deliver up for us Jesus' body, or cite a Roman or Jewish source who did.

39.How does an empty tomb prove that Jesus was crucified ? Isn’t it that God is capable of removing another man from the tomb, and of resurrecting him too?

Our friend now soars up to the lofty heights of surrealism on his flight of fancy.

First, an empty tomb doesn't "prove that Jesus was crucified;" history does a fine job of that. He was declared dead by the war-hardened Roman soldiers who attended His execution. He was acknowledged as dead by Joseph of Arimathea and the High Priest.

The empty tomb is testimony to His resurrection. Yes, God could have "removed another man from the tomb," etc., etc., and our friend is free to believe that if he wishes. He is just as free to believe that Santa Claus swooped down in his reindeer-driven sleigh and rescued Jesus right in the nick of time! And that the "man in white" was none other than the tooth fairy, here to leave a shiny new coin at the head of Jesus' bed! Though he is free to believe any fairy tale he wishes, we point out that these stand in stark contrast to historical and Scriptural fact.

40.The Gospels are believed to be the verbatim words of God, they are supposed to be dictated by the Holy Spirit to the Disciples who wrote them. If the source were the same, why shouldn’t they correspond with each other in reporting such an important event?

First, where does it say "dictated?" Theopneustos does not mean "dictated" in the mechanistic sense.

And, as we have pointed out, the accounts not only "correspond," they compliment one another.

41.How could Matthew, Mark, Luke and John be considered eyewitnesses of resurrection when the Bible implies that nobody at all saw Jesus coming out of the tomb?

If you are in the desert, at an oasis which is the only one around for hundreds of miles, without any water cans or other visible means of storing water independent of the oasis, and I come upon you and you're soaking wet, would you say I was an eyewitness to the fact that you had taken a dip in the oasis?

This is really not a difficult trail of logic to follow. Note:

1. Jesus was executed; He really died, as independently verified by at least four sources (the disciples, Joseph of Aramithea, the Roman soldiers, and Pilate)
2. Jesus was buried in the familial tomb of Joseph of Aramithea. Crack Roman guards were placed around the tomb to prevent mischief by the disciples
3. Independent of human action, the stone was miraculously rolled away on Resurrection morning, the guards incapacitated, and the tomb vacated. Angelic beings declared His Resurrection, and His post-Resurrection appearances verified their claim.
4. No one could present the body of Jesus to counter this historical fact, even though at least two parties involved (the Romans and the Jews) had a decidedly vested interest in doing so if they could.

A small child is capable of understanding such simple logic. Our good Mohammedian friend, however, claims to have trouble doing so.

BIBLE:
If the Christians consider the Old Testament as God’s Word, why did they cancel the parts of the Old Testament that dealt with punishment (example: the punishment for adultery)?

Yes, God "considers" the Old Testament to be His Word. He inspired it, and He bears witness to it.

How do "they" cancel parts of the Old Testament? How do I, for instance, somehow magically "cancel" the laws dealing with adultery? If our friend means to imply that I do not believe the lawful penalty should be imposed for adultery, he is making a very tenuous assumption. He also fails to distinguish between the Laws that constituted God's chosen nation Israel, which are still and forever will be valid (and demonstrate His righteous standard for civil government, one might add) and those that deal with individual interpersonal relationships. For instance, the State is given the obligation to pursue evildoers and punish disobedience; individual Christians, however, are obligated to pursue forgiveness and reconciliation. The Law was given to condemn, not save [Galatians 3:19] and applies to believer and nonbeliever alike without exception and without prejudice; grace was given to save, not condemn [John 3:17]. There is no contradiction or "cancellation." The two were given for different purposes and govern different entities engaged in different relationships under different circumstances.

42.Why doesn’t Mark 16:9-20 exist in as many versions of the Bible while it exists as a footnote or between brackets in some other versions? Is a footnote in the Bible still considered as God’s word, especially when it addresses an important feature like the Ascension?

Mark 16:9-20 is rightly set aside in a footnote in most modern translations since it does not exist in the oldest and most accurate Texts available. It is therefore of questionable origin. No doctrine should therefore be taken from it. Mark 16:9-20, however, contains nothing that isn't referred to in the rest of Scripture; it was itself probably a footnote (a marginal notation, if you will) made by some early Christian to summarize what happened next -- much like I myself and most Christians I know write marginal notes in our own Bibles.

The Ascension is dealt with in far more -- and absolutely unquestionable -- detail in Acts 1:9-11.

Besides, our friend's objection is more than a bit disingenuous. He himself refuses to accept either passage as authentic and authoritative.

43.Why does the Catholic Bible contain 73 books while the Protestant Bible has only 66? With both claiming to have the complete Word of God, which one should be believed and why?

Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles both have the exact same New Testament. The disagreement derives from the Old Testament. Protestants -- and the Apostles themselves -- accepted as God's Word the thirty-nine Books of the Hebrew Old Testament. Sometime in the second century B.C., a group of Jewish scholars translated the Old Testament into the common language of that day -- Greek. This is known as the Septuagint version, or the LXX. Some nonscriptural but highly regarded books made their way into the Septuagint -- like Tobit, and the additions to Daniel and Esther. These were never accepted as Scripture by the Jews of the Holy Land, nor by the Apostles. The early church was largely Gentile, and therefore largely Greek-speaking. They had a ready-translated edition of the Old Testament Scriptures right there -- which they used. It is very, very important to note that the "extra" books in the Roman Catholic editions of the Old Testament (called the "Apocrypha" to differentiate them from the Old Testament) weren't even considered Scripture by the Catholics until the Protestant Reformation; then they were declared "deuterocanonical," for "secondary canon." Even they didn't recognize all the Apocryphal books; the Eastern Orthodox church has 75 books in their Old Testament -- they include all the nonscriptural books from the Septuagint.

Protestants will often study these extra books as well, but not as Scripture; instead, they can be insightful historical books -- like the Maccabean records, which provide us with an account of events we would otherwise be in the dark about.

Regardless, as with the previous question, we must note the disingenuosity of the question, as our friend refuses to accept the authenticity and authority of either version of the Old Testament.

44.Where do those new translations of the Bible keep coming from when the original Bible is not even available ? The Greek manuscripts which are translations themselves are not even similar with each other.

They aren't? I would be fascinated to see our friend's data on this; he must be in possession of information far superior to that of all the best Greek scholars through almost twenty centuries of study of those Texts!

Actually, the purity of the New Testament is absolutely unparalleled in ancient literature -- including the Qu'ran. No other body of ancient literature even comes close to it. And yes, the "original Bible" is indeed very much available -- the one anyone can get from any bookstore in America (so long as it is a faithful translation). The underlying Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are readily available for anyone's examination / comparison with modern translations. I myself have in my possession the New Testament According To The Majority Text, the 26th Edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, the 4th Edition of the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament, an ancient Latin version, and most of the 14th Edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.

45.How can you take two gospels from writers who never met Jesus, like Mark and Luke?

Our Mohammedian friend continues his downward spiral. He truly should pull up soon lest he crash.

First, there is every indication that Mark did know Jesus. Second, Luke -- as he explains in the prologue of both his Gospel and the Book of Acts, wrote his Gospel after careful research and interviewing the actual eyewitnesses. Luke the beloved physician was a travelling companion of Paul's. Luke's Gospel was published c. AD 60, when most of the Apostles were still around, and a very large chunk of the other disciples of Jesus. As with Matthew's Gospel, there is overwhelming evidence that his Gospel made its way throughout the Empire in a very short period of time. Were there any errors, the Apostles were there to clear them up -- but they didn't; the Jews could have objected -- but they didn't; or the Romans could have countered -- but they didn't.

46.Why is half of the New Testament written by a man who never even met Jesus in his lifetime? PAUL claimed with no proof that he had met Jesus while on his way from Jerusalem to Damascus. PAUL was the main enemy of Christianity. Isn’t that reason enough to question the authenticity of what he wrote? Why do the Christians call those books of the Old Testament "God’s Word" when the revisors of the RSV Bible say that some of the authors are UNKNOWN? They say that the author of SAMUEL is "UNKNOWN" and that of CHRONICLES is "UNKOWN, PROBABLY COLLECTED AND EDITED BY EZRA"!

Where is our Mohammedian friend's proof that Paul never met Jesus prior to His crucifixion? God's Word is silent about this. However, Paul did in fact meet Him on the road to Damascus -- a fact never challenged by any of the other Apostles. And that our friend brings up that he has no other eyewitness corroboration of it is hypocritical in the extreme; what other person other than his "prophet" ever heard his "Allah?" What corroboration is there for the veracity of the Qu'ran?

Second, the fact that Paul began as the sworn enemy of Jesus actually is dramatic proof of the reality of the resurrection. After an encounter with the Risen Jesus, Paul was radically converted, and carried the Gospel of Jesus to the far corners of the Roman Empire, even suffering horrible torments and eventual martyrdom.

Finally, Paul's writings are authentic by virtue of the fact that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, which He bore witness of by performing the signs of an Apostle through Paul -- signs which Mohammed never duplicated.

The thirty-nine Books of the Old Testament are indeed God's holy Word, yes. The revisers of the RSV are free to believe what they want; they are not God.

CONTRADICTIONS:

47.Concerning the controversial issues in the Bible, how can Christians decide by two-thirds majority what is God’s Word and what is not, as the prefaces of some Bibles say like that one of the RSV ?

Again, the editors of the RSV are free to believe what they want. The New Testament has been in existence for almost twenty centuries, and the Old Testament for over forty centuries. The Word of God has been constantly assailed before the modern era, and always -- as now -- inevitably is vindicated as God's holy Word.

Liberal "scholars," like the editors of the RSV and NRSV, are amply and ably responded to by the thousands of conservative Biblical scholars. If our Mohammedian friend wishes to suggest that truth is determined by majority vote, then he needs to answer for us why there is such a marked difference between (for instance) the Sunni and the Shi'ia understandings of Mohammedism?

48.Why does Luke in his gospel report the Ascension on Easter Day, and in the Acts, in which he is recognized as the author, FORTY days later?

Where in Luke does it say that the Ascension occurred on the Resurrection Day?

49.The genealogy of Jesus is mentioned in Matthew and Luke only. Matthew listed 26 forefathers from Joseph to David while Luke enumerated 41 forefathers. Only Joseph matches with Joseph in those two lists. Not a single other name matches! If these were inspired by God word by word, how could they be different? Some claim that one is for Mary and one is for Joseph, but where does it says Mary in those two Gospels?

One is through Mary and the other through Joseph.

Matthew -- whose Gospel was concerned with presenting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, the Son of David, presents Jesus' lineage through His adopted father Joseph. This would be His legal lineage. It is through Joseph's adoption of Him that He had legal claim to the throne of Israel. Joseph's lineage goes back through Solomon to David.

Luke -- whose Gospel was concerned with presenting Jesus as the perfect Man, and who was not Jewish as Matthew was -- presents Jesus' lineage through Mary. Mary's name does not appear, for as in the Roman world, in Jewish genealogies women do not figure. Lineage is usually traced through the father. Jesus' Father is the Father, so Luke traces His human lineage through Mary's father, whose name is Heli (the Jewish concept of "son" is also not as strict as ours in the West; the word can mean son, son-in-law, nephew, grandson, etc.). Note Luke points out that Jesus is not Joseph's Son, but was only supposed so by the uninformed.