Ullah says: I am aware of the accusations you make against the quran and have read and

heard people like Jimmy Swaggart et al.' their claims were refuted

conprehensively and as a result jimmy swaggart shut shop and went into

hiding. The $200million/year he was receiving for his missionary work was

obviously a big waste of money.

R: the accusations against the Qur'an are well-founded (see John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an: the Codification of the Qur'an Text (TMFMT, 1989), pp. 134-8). That hypocrite Jimmy Swaggart has nothing to do with it.

U: Answer the following for me as you are an authority over your religion:

- Why did Paul fight the Disciples of jesus Christ and those that were

preaching the message of Christ?

R: Until spiritually-blind Paul was converted on the Damascus Road (see Acts 9), he was a sworn enemy of Christ. After he met the risen Christ, he became a great champion for Christ - God incarnate - and the way of salvation through faith in His precious blood shed for us all on the cross. When you are persuaded of your own sinfulness, Kaleem, you too will trust, love and worship Jesus. Until then, you are blind like Paul was.

U: Look at some of the blatant contradictions in your book - The Gods must

have been having an Off-day when they all wrote it!

R: There are no such 'blatant' contradictions, only apparent ones to superficial readers. Beware of blaspheming the inspired and infallible Word of God, the Holy Bible (not the Qur'an).

U: - Who is the father of Joseph? R: Jacob, as in Matt. 1: 16.

Wasn't Jesus born of immaculate conception [?]

R: that term is used by RCs for the conception of Mary (a totally unscriptural idea, see Lk. 1: 47). But Jesus was born of Mary by virginal conception of the Holy Spirit (a fact even your Qur'an agrees with).

U: Mary and Joseph married (i.e. Joseph was her husband)? Husband and wife

not conceiving, I have never known of that to happen - where is the virgin

and who fathered this jesus of the new testament?

R: Joseph and Mary had a normal married life with children after the birth of Jesus (contrary to the RC fiction of Mary's perpetual virginity). See Matt. 1: 25; Mk. 6: 1-3.

U: MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born

Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being

(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

- The genealogy of Joseph

Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew

1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of

Joseph was. Dont tell me that the genealogy mentioned in luke is that of

Mary's, when Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy (Luke

3:23).

R: No they not contradictory, for the following reasons. Matthew gives the 'royal-legal' descent of Christ, through Joseph (to be a son of David, see below), whereas Luke gives the 'natural-legal' descent through Joseph as the son-in-law of Heli. Mary (according to Jewish tradition, daughter of Heli), since she had no brothers, was an heiress; therefore her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her father's family as Heli's son. Thus Joseph was the biological son of Jacob, and the legal son of Heli. Lk. 3: 23 is not unusual in calling a man a 'son' albeit a 'son-in-law', i.e. While David was Saul's 'son-in-law', yet he was called his 'son' (see 1 Sam. 24: 16).

U: - Is Jesus equal to or lesser than God/Father?

R: He is 'equal' in deity (sharing the divine nature) but 'lesser' through His incarnation and suffering, often called His 'humiliation' (see Philippians 2).

U: JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

R: yes, one in nature and purpose.

U: JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again

unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the

Father: for my Father is greater than I.

R: divested of divine infinity through His incarnation, the man Christ Jesus became 'less' than the Father (not in nature but as an obedient servant).

U: - The date of the birth of Jesus

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great

(Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census

in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is

impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place

in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

R: The problem really lies in a degree of ambiguity in Lk. 2: 2. Why does it speak of a 'first' census if there wasn't another? It really means there was a later census when Quirinius was afterwards Governor of Syria. Archaeology supports this view. Inscriptions discovered by Sir William Ramsay show that Quirinius was 'governor' in Syria both before and after the birth of Jesus, in different respects.

U: - WHY DID JOHN BAPTIZE JESUS?

John baptized for repentance (Matthew 3:11). Since Jesus was supposedly

without sin, he had nothing to repent of. Other passages, which indicate

that Jesus did not consider himself sinless, (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19).

R: True, Jesus had no sins to repent of. As priests were ceremonially sprinkled with water before they could officiate (see Numbers 8: 6-7), Jesus was baptised to qualify Himself as the Priest of God who offered His own blood on the cross for the sins of the world (see Jn. 1: 29). He was also baptised since He came to bear our sins that we may be pardoned by faith in Him. Jesus is not implying that he might be sinful in Mk. 10: 18. He is simply challenging the rich young ruler's perception of His teaching., i.e. if you call me 'good teacher', you must accept me in whom God the Father is speaking. Jesus actually challenged others to expose any sin in Himself (see Jn. 8: 46). They made no such accusation against the sinless Son of God!

U: Luke, who claims to be chronological (Luke 1:3), tries to give the

impression that John did not baptize Jesus. Luke's account of Jesus'

baptism occurs after the account of John's imprisonment (Luke 3:20-21).

R: Luke does no such thing. In Lk. 3: 21 he simply says retrospectively that Jesus had been baptised along with all the others (as in vs. 7-17).

U: - SON OF DAVID?

Matthew, Mark and Luke all contain passages which have Jesus quoting Psalm

110:1 to argue that the Messiah does not need to be a son of David

(Matthew 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44).

R: Humanly speaking, Jesus was 'son of David' (by genealogy) but divinely speaking He was David's 'Lord' (having also created David, see Jn. 1: 1-14). He was the eternal 'Son of God' (before time) but the temporal 'son of David'. Both things are true, since Jesus is the 'God-man', God incarnate, as He explains Ps. 110. So there is no contradiction of Jesus the Messiah being the 'son of David' (as in Acts 2: 30-6). This is true Church doctrine (see Rom. 1: 1-4).

U: 1. This contradicts many Old Testament passages that indicate that the

Messiah will be a descendant of David. It also contradicts official church

doctrine.

2. In Acts 2:29-36 Peter, in what is regarded as the first Christian

sermon, quotes Psalm 110:1 in arguing that Jesus was the Messiah, a

descendant of David.

R: So, Kaleem, I have dealt with your objections. But until you confess yourself to be a sinner (with a proud and dark mind, heart and will), you will never reject the hopeless soul-damning teaching of Islam for the soul-saving liberating truth of our Lord Jesus Christ. I will pray that God will graciously illuminate you by His Holy Spirit.

Best wishes!

Dr Alan C. Clifford