Dear John

I thank you for the time you have spent attempting to prove that the New Testament, or Injil as the Quran names it, you hold in your hands, or any other version thereof, be it revised or edited, is the true word of God. I am pretty sure that you can recall that I told you to come to me with ONE and ONLY ONE WRITTEN EVIDENCE from any Bible book which can prove your statement that it is the word of God, it is holy, and it is protected. I was curious to see your reply which turned out to be an utterly disappointing one in the event I am entitled to the right of expressing my opinion. I am only referring to your response here. I have also told you not to talk about history because I am not interested in that. So please, I would be happy if you refrain from telling historical events which are of no value to me as long as we are talking about a HOLY BOOK.

If you say in the first paragraph that Judaism and Christianity are not concerned about teaching all humanity, then what is it about? Why would God attempt to lead mankind out of sin and redeem a people? John, when we talk about God, we talk about a matchless power with which the word attempt can’t occur. God is all capable and if He wants something, then that something is done. God can never fail.

You also talked about “a people”. Is this part of the fact that Christians consider themselves separate from other people? You spoke about the purpose of religion as redeeming sin and then later in the same paragraph said when scriptures talk about the word of God, then this word is “almost always” – I can see that you are giving a personal opinion – “a law for a people to follow as a community, or a prophecy concerning God’s people.” I wonder who are the God’s people you are referring to? You have then mentioned something about your own experience which I consider as subjective and irrelevant to my question to you: “Can you prove that the present day Bible is the true word of God?”

I also believe in the God of Ibrahim, Moses and Jesus, and I also believe in the Bible which was sent to Jesus. If you say that languages are imperfect, how can you say that it “can ALWAYS be MISINTERPRETED by the common people the books are written for”. John, can’t you see that you are losing a point here by saying that the books are written for the common people and then you say that they can always misinterpret them.

WHAT IS THAT, John?

The Bible was written after the death of Moses and Jesus but the Quran was written when Mohammed was alive. Nothing was written after Mohammed but rather was compiled into one book.

You wrote “You can’t expect anyone to change their whole life to follow them because of one prophecy which came true or one verse which SEEMS to anticipate a modern scientific fact.” My humble understanding tells me that you are referring to Quran here. If this is a case, then I would like to tell you that I believe that you have a problem with numbers. Is it only one prophecy in the QURAN which came true? Is it only ONE VERSE which SEEMS to anticipate modern scientific fact? I would rather leave that to your honesty with yourself. You may see for the sake of no one but yourself how many scientific facts in the Quran anticipate modern science. And you may also see how many scientists came to Islam after finding out that what they discovered was already there in the Quran more than 14 centuries ago. John, can you only think of who are those people who convert to Islam and why do they do so. Do you think that all of them do not know God? I do not think that collective judgment here is fair.

John, we know when the Quran was written. Maybe you can be of a great help to Christianity and try to track the most ancient historical records of the time of writing the Bible since you like to talk about history.

You quoted Bart Ehrman. Can you answer his question: “If God performed his miracle of sending down the Bible, why did not He perform his miracle to protect it?” I advise you – and the decision remains all yours – to watch what he says again with an intention to logically counter his argument that what people have today is not even a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the first translation of the Bible. Since you spoke about language, you people do not follow the English spoken 5 centuries ago. How can you follow a translation of a translation of .. of … of the Book which was first written in a language  Jesus never spoke. Given that you mentioned the word “promise” in your reply, do you have any evidence from anywhere in the Bible where God or Jesus talks about a promise to protect the Bible from corruption? Do you have a single matchless evidence that what you have today is the true word of God sent down to Jesus? Just one

John, for your sake not mine. I am actually in no need of that, but would rather want to you to prove to those Christians who convert to Islam – or – for your convenience -  those who turn away from Christianity, that what you have is God’s word as sent to Jesus.  I hope am not making your task a challenging one. Believing in that there is no translation which could render any text from a source language into a target language fully, and that translation always contains some change in meaning, style, addition, loss and skewing of meaning, how would you logically want me to believe that what you have today, which is only a translation of the most ancient manuscript, is truly the word of God.

Part two

Dear John,

In this part, I will cite to you evidences that the present day New Testament is not the true word of God. This is not a personal opinion but rather a belief strengthened by what the Quran says and Christian and non-Christian scholars says in this regard.

Dr. W. Graham Scroggie from the Moody Bible Institute, a

Christian

 

institution of higher education

 founded by evangelist

Dwight Lyman Moody

 in 1886, Chicago, answers the question “Is the Bible the Word of God?”, title of his book first published in 1923, and says in page 17:

“Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books (as the Bible is a collection of many books) have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men.” I have no idea what can you possibly say to this eminent scholar. Probably he does not know God or has not read the Bible where it says It is a Holy Book, if you can find me one proof of such a claim.  

Kenneth Cragg, another well-educated scholar and the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book titled “The Call of the Minaret

“Not so the New Testament . . . There is condensation and editing; 4 there is choice, reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come

through the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history.”

          My humble understanding, seeing the two quotations above, tells me that this is man made work and handwriting. I am in no wonder at all knowing that there are many people who will not accept the truth no matter what evidence you bring to them. Jesus (Essa peace be upon him) said: “… seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” (Matthew 13:13). The Quran, chapter 2: verse 18, describes such kind of people who do not want to accept the truth: “deaf, dumb and blind, they will not return (to the right path)”.

Let us go a little bit further. When Muslims come to prove their belief that the present day New Testament is not a Holy Book depending on the Bible itself, and when priests find no way to refute the arguments, they would hopelessly ask “Do you accept the Bible as the Word of God?”. The question, SEEMINGLY EASY, can not be answered with “Yes” or “No”. Christians in most cases will not give people the chance to explain their views. They just want you to answer with “Yes” or “No”. If the answer is “Yes”, then we have to follow what the Bible says from Genesis to Revelation without having the right to question it. If we answer “No”, Christian priests will say, “This man does not believe in the Bible! What right does he have to support his case from the Bible?” So, you either accept it as it is, or leave it.

Given that Islam makes it an article of faith to believe in the previous books and prophets, Muslims believe that the New Testament includes the Word of God, Words of a Prophet of God, and Words of Historians.

An example of the first type is “I will raise them up a prophet . . . and I will put my words in ... and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18). Another example of the first type is “I even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour.” (Isaiah 43:11). A third example can be found in (Isaiah 45:22) “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth: for I am God, and there is non else.”

We believe that examples of the above type are God’s Words.

The second type includes examples as:

“Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? . . .” (Matthew 27:46).

“And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord:” (Mark 12:29).

“And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.” (Mark 10:18).

It is crystal clear here that when we say “Jesus “cried”“, “Jesus “answered”“ and “Jesus “said”“ are WORDS OF A PROPHET OF GOD.

An example of the third type is “

“And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he, (JESUS) came, if haply he (JESUS) might find anything thereon: and when he (JESUS) came to it, (Jesus) found nothing but leaves . ..” (Mark 11:13).

Islam makes it an article of faith to believe in Tauraat (Old Testament), Injeel (New Testament) and Zabur (the Holy Book of Dawud (David)). We strongly believe that the Holy Qur'an is the infallible Word of Allah (God), revealed to Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him), and is perfectly preserved and protected from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years! Muslims need not worry about protecting Quran from corruption as Allah guarantees that and Muslims and the whole world know that there is only One Quran for 14 centuries as of now. For your own information, Sir William Muir, a critic of Islam says about the Quran: “There is probably in the world no other book which has remained twelve centuries (now fourteen) with so a pure text.” John, would you only think, for yourself only, why would a critic of Islam say this about the Quran.

Let us now talk about the Injeel (Gospel or good news) which Jesus (Essa) preached.

“And Jesus went . . . preaching the gospel . . . and healing every disease among the people.” (Matthew 9:35).

“... but whosoever shall lose his fife for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.” (Mark 8:35).

... preached the gospel. . .” (Luke 20:1).

Could you tell me which of the 27 books of the New Testament Jesus (Essa) preached. All Gospels are according to St. Mathew, St. Mark, St. Luke and according to St. John. Can you find me one Gospel according to “Jesus”. I hope there is only one Christian worthy of the clothes he wears who can find a Gospel according to St. Jesus or according to Jesus. Jesus never wrote a word of what he taught neither did he asked anyone to write anything. If you think am wrong, show me ONE word Jesus wrote.

Which Bible do you believe in?

Do you believe in the Catholic Bible?

My dear friend John, the reason why I am asking you this is that if your answer is “Yes”, I would simply ask you what is your proof that all other Bibles should not be accounted for. If you answered “No”, then what would you say about the Catholic Bible? Are all the Bibles the same? Do they really preach the same? If yes, what is the need of having more than one Bible? If no, why would God’s word be different in every Bible?

The oldest version of the Bible which can be bought today is the Roman Catholic Version published in 1582. The Protestant world condemns the RCV because it contains seven extra “books” referred to as the “apocrypha” (of doubtful authority).

The Protestants renamed the Apocalypse as Revelation. It says:

“. . . If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book.” (Revelation 22:18-19)

The Protestants have bravely removed seven whole books from their Book of God!!!! The outcasts are Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, and Ester.

I do not really need to go into details into this as that is a waste of time for me. I advise you, but the decision remains all yours, to visit

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

and try to find out the reasons for yourself.

My question here is “Who gave the Protestants the authority to delete from God’s book?” “Who authorized them to delete, or add, or edit, or update or revise the Bible?”

Do they have a mandate from God to do so?

John, if you do not believe in the Catholic Bible, may be you can try the Protestant one. I can understand that a “Yes” or “No” answer is not applicable here. But let’s us see if you can reason it for yourself.

Do you believe in the Protestant Bible?

Sir Winston Churchill says about the Authorized Version (AV) – I wonder who authorized it. -  of the Protestant Bible, known as the “King James Version (KJV)”.

“The authorized version of the bible was published in 1611 by the will and command of his majesty king James the 1st whose name it bears till today.”

The Roman Catholics believe that the Protestants mutilated the Book of God. However, they ask their native converts to purchase the Authorized Version (AV) of the Bible. Maybe they (the Catholics) later found out that are ashamed of the seven books the Protestants deleted. You may refer to the link above.

The King James Version was published in 1611 as Sir Winston says, revised in 1881

and re-revised as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and again re-revised in 1971 (still RSV for short). The following are the opinions of the Christian churches about the RVS”

1. ”The finest version which has been produced in the present century.” (Church Of England Newspaper).

2. ”A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence.” (Times Literary Supplement).

3. ”The well-loved characteristics of the authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation.” (Life And Work).

4. ”The most accurate and close rendering of the original” (The Times).

The publishers say “This bible (RSV), is the product of thirty-two scholars, assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty co-operating denominations.” John, who authorized those people? Maybe God? Or the church? You can choose whatever suits you to reason yourself. But I believe neither and my opinion shall be binding to no one but myself.

Can’t you see John that we are only talking about version, version, version, revised,

edited, re-revised, authorized, translated. Why is this happening to God’s word? It seems God was not able to protect his word from corruption! (God forbids).

I am not saying things as personal opinion but rather bring to you from your own books. Please, do not worry about the Quran. It will remain a permanent challenge that no man can face. I will bring you written evidence at the end of my argument just so that you may read.

John, what is this?

R.S.V. 1971. Hurry and see if they can delete it before many people ask why would there be “grave defects” in God’s book.

In the Awake Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, the Jehovah's Witnesses wrote this headline” “50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?”!

John, do you think they corrected all of them? Do you also think that they do not know what they are talking about? Or maybe they do not know God and they just want to write a new Bible. But if you think that that was the Word of God, do you think that God makes mistakes? I hereby pose a challenge to any Christian worthy of his/her name to prove that God makes mistakes. If there is no way to face such a challenge, can any Christian prove it to be a Holy Book, One Book, or protected? If they choose the second, please come to with evidence, and I repeat myself, please bring evidence. Please save your time and refrain from writing things which do not appeal to mind or reason. I am not interested in historical records as long as there is a Holy Book. Oh! I was talking about a written evidence.

We Muslims find it a waste of our time to try to find out the defects, be they major or minor, and would rather such a privilege to the Christian scholars. Please have a look at a minor, let me call them so for now, change made in the Bible. There are many changes but for the time being

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14 - AV)

VIRGIN” in the above verse is replaced in the RSV with the phrase “a young woman,” which is considered to be the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. You are not convinced; let us go a little further.

THE ASCENSION

One of the most serious of the "grave defects" which the authors of the RSV tried to rectify was the Ascension of Christ. Two references were only made in the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and of John to the most amazing event in Christianity — OF JESUS BEING TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN. These two references were obtained in every Bible in every language, prior to 1952, when the RSV first appeared. The references were:

A. "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN, and sat down at the right hand of God." (Mark 16:19).

B. "While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN." (Luke 24:51)

Mark 16 ended at verse 8. It is really embarrassing to leave a blank space and find the missing verses appear in a footnote. Every honest Christian has to admit that he does not consider any footnote in any Bible as the word of God. Why should the paid servants of Christianity consign the mightiest miracle of their religion to a mere footnote?

        

Maybe you can give me a logical explanation.

Do you have any copy of the most ancient which is

Crucifixion

By Ahmed Deedat

On the subject of crucifixion, the Muslim is told in no uncertain terms, in the Holy Qur'an, the last and final revelation of God, that they didn't kill Him, nor did they crucify Him. But it was made to appear to them so. And those who dispute therein, are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge; they only follow conjecture, guesswork. For of a surety, they killed Him not.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Could anyone have been more explicit, more dogmatic, more uncompromising, in stating a belief than this? The only one who was entitled to say such words is the all-knowing, omniscient Lord of the universe.

The Muslim believes this authoritative statement as the veritable Word of God. And as such, he asks no questions, and he demands no proof. He says, "There are the words of my Lord; I believe, and I affirm." But the Christian responds in the words of our honorable guest. In his book, Josh McDowell with Don Stewart in "Answers to tough Questions" on pages 116 and 117, states the Christian's attitude toward this uncompromising statement of the Muslim. He says, "A major problem with accepting Mohammed's account is that his testimony is 600 years after the event occurred, while the New Testament contains eyewitness, or first hand, testimony of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ."

In a nutshell, the Christian asks how can a man a thousand miles away from the scene of the happening of the crucifixion and 600 years in time away from the happening know what happened in Jerusalem? The Muslim responds that these are the words of God Almighty. And therefore, as such, God knew what had happened. The Christian naturally reasons that, had he accepted this book, the Qur'an, as the Word of God, there would have been no dispute between us. We would all have been Muslims!

We have eyewitness and earwitness accounts of these happenings which are stated for us in the Holy Bible, more especially in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Now, the implication of this crucifixion is this: it is alleged that Jesus Christ was murdered by the Jews by means of crucifixion 2,000 years ago, And as such, the Jews

are guilty of the murder of Jesus Christ. We Muslims are told that they are innocent because Christ was not killed, nor was He crucified, And as such, I am given the [mandate] by the Holy Qur'an to defend the Jews against the Christian charge. I'm going to defend the Jews this afternoon, not because they are my cousins, but simply because justice must he done. We have our points of difference with the Jews - that is a different question altogether. This afternoon, I will try my very best to do justice to my cousins, the Jews.

Now, in this argument, this debate, this dialogue, I am actually the defense counsel for the Jews, and Josh McDowell is the prosecuting counsel. And you, ladies and gentlemen, are the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I want you to sit back, relax and at the end of this, give judgment to yourself, to your own conscience whether the Jews are guilty or not of the charge as alleged by the Christians.

Now, to get to the point, as the defense counsel for the Jews, I could have had this case against the Jews dismissed in just two minutes - in any court of law, in any civilized country in the world, simply by demanding from the prosecuting counsel the testimonies of these witnesses, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, And when they are presented, in the form of sworn affidavits, as we have them in the gospels, I could say that, in their original, they are not attested. And the proof - you get any authorized King James Version of the Bible, and you'll find each and every affidavit begins: "The Gospel according to St. Matthew, the Gospel according to St. Mark, the Gospel according to St. Luke, the Gospel according to St. John." I'm asking, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what is this "according ... according ... according"? Do you know what it means? It means Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't sign their names. It is only assumed that these are their work. And as such, in any court of law, in any civilized country, they would be thrown out of court in just two minutes.

Not only that, I can have this case dismissed TWICE in two minutes in any court of law in any civilized country. I said twice because one of the testators in the Gospel of St. Mark, chapter 14, verse 50, tells us that at the most critical juncture in the life of Jesus, all His disciples forsook Him, and fled. ALL. If they were not there, the testimony of those who

were not there to witness what happened will be thrown out of court. I said, twice in two minutes, in just 120 seconds flat, the case would be over. In any court of law. in any civilized country in the world.

But where is the fun of it? You have come a long way from far and wide, after all the threatening rains. And now, if we say the case is closed and go home, where is the fun of it? To entertain you, I will accept those documents as valid, for the sake of this dialogue, and we are now going to put these witnesses into the box for cross- examination. And I want you to see where the truth lies.

The first witness that I'm going to call, happens to be St. Luke. And St. Luke has been described by Christian authorities as one of the greatest historians. As a historical book, the Gospel of St. Luke is unique. Now, we get St. Luke. chapter 24. verse 36. I'm going to tell you what he has said - what he has written in black and white. He tells us that it was Sunday evening, the first day of the week, when Jesus Christ walked into that upper room, the one in which He had the Last Supper with His disciples. This is three days after His alleged crucifixion. He goes in, and He wishes His disciples, "Peace be unto you." And when He said, "Peace be unto you," His disciples were terrified. Is that true? We're asking you. I would like to ask Him, why were the disciples terrified? Because when one meets his long-lost master, his grandfather, his guru, his Rabbi - we Eastern people embrace one another; we kiss one another. Why should His disciples be terrified? So Luke tells us they were frightened, because they thought He was a spirit.

I'm only quoting what he said. And you can verify in your own Bible at home. They were frightened, they were terrified because they thought He was a spirit. I'm asking Luke, did He look like a spirit? And he says no. I'm asking all the Christians of the world again and again, of every church and denomination, this master of yours, did He look like a spirit? And they all say no. Then I say, why should they think that man is a spirit when He didn't look like one?

And everyone is puzzled - unless Josh can explain. Every Christian is puzzled. Why should they think the man is a spirit when He didn't look like one? I will tell you. The reason is because the disciples of Jesus had heard from hearsay that the Master was hanged on

the cross. They had heard, from hearsay, that He had given up the ghost. In other words. His spirit had come out: He had died. They had heard from hearsay that He was dead and buried for three days. All their knowledge was from hearsay, because as I said at the beginning (Mark, chapter 14, verse 50), your other witness says that at the most critical juncture in the life of Jesus all His disciples forsook Him and fled. All! They were not there.

So, all the knowledge being from hearsay, you come across a person who you heard was dead for three days. You assume that He's stinking in His grave. When you see such a person. naturally, you're terrified. So Jesus wants to assure them that He's not what they're thinking. They are thinking that He has come back from the dead. A resurrected, spiritualized body, so He says - I am only quoting what Luke says - He says, "Behold My hands and My feet." Have a look at My hands and My feet, that it is I, Myself. I am the same fellow, man, what's wrong with you? Why are you afraid? He says, "Handle Me and see. Handle Me and see. For a spirit has no flesh and bones, as you see me have."

A spirit: indefinite article "a." A spirit, any spirit, has no flesh and bones, as you see me have. So, if I have flesh and bones, I'm not a spirit: I'm not a ghost: I'm not a spook. I am asking the English man - the one who speaks English as his mother tongue - since I have flesh and bones. I'm not a spirit: I'm not a ghost: I'm not a spook. I say. is that what it means in your language?

I say, you Afrikaner, when a man tells you that, does it mean that he's not what you are thinking? That is, he is not a spirit, he is not a ghost, he is not a spook. And everybody responds "yes." If a man tells you a spirit has no flesh and bones, it means it has no flesh and bones. As you see, I have these things, so I'm not what you're thinking. You are thinking that I was dead, and I have come back from the dead and am resurrected. If a spirit has no flesh and bones, in other words, he's telling you that the body you are seeing is not a metamorphosed body. It is not a translated body; it is not a resurrected body. Because a resurrected body gets spiritualized.

Who says so? My authority is Jesus. You say, "Where?" I say Luke, you look again - chapter 20 in verse 36. What does he say? You see, the Jews were always coming to

Him with riddles; they were always asking Him, "Master, shall we pay tribute to Caesar or not? Master, this woman, we found her in the act. What shall we do to her? Master ..." Again and again. Now, they come to Him and they ask Him, it says. "Master," Rabbi in the Hebrew language, "Master, we had a woman among us, and this woman according to a Jewish custom, had seven husbands." You see, according to a Jewish custom, if a brother of a man dies and leaves no offspring. then the man takes his brother's wife to be his own wife. And when he fails the third brother does likewise, and the fourth and the fifth and the sixth, and the seventh.

Seven brothers had this woman as a wife. but there was no problem while on this earth because it was all one by one. Now, they want to know from Him that at the resurrection, in the hereafter, which one is going to have her, because they all had her here. In other words, there will be a war in heaven, because we believe that we will all be resurrected simultaneously. All together. at one time. And these seven brothers wake up at the same time. and they see this woman and every one would say, "My wife! My wife!" and there would be a war in heaven between the brothers for this one woman.

So they want to know from Him which one is going to have her on the other side. Luke. chapter 20, verse 36. Check it out. In answer to that. Jesus said about these resurrected men and women, "Neither shall they die anymore." In other words, "Once they are resurrected, they will be immortalized." This is a mortal body. It needs food, shelter, clothing, sex, rest. Without these things mankind perishes. That body will be an immortalized body. An immortal body, no food, no shelter, no clothing, no sex, no rest. He says neither shall they die anymore. For they are equal unto the angels.

In other words, they will be angel-ized. They will be spiritualized; they will be spiritual creatures; they will be spirits! For they are equal unto angels and the children of God. Such are the children of the resurrection - spirit! He said "A spirit has no flesh and bones, as you see Me have." In other words, "I'm not resurrected." And they believed not for joy and wonders - Luke 24 again. What happened then?

We thought the man was already dead, perhaps stinking in His grave. And they believed

not for joy - overjoy - and they wonder what happened? So He says, "Have you any broiled fish and a honeycomb here, meat - something to eat?" And they gave Him a piece of bread and He took it and ate it in their very sight. To prove what? I'm asking ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what was He trying to demonstrate? What? "I am the same fellow, man; I am not what you are thinking, I have not come back from the dead."

This was Sunday evening after the alleged crucifixion.

Let's go back. What happened in the morning? Your other witness, John, chapter 20, verse 1, tells us that it was Sunday morning, the first day of the week, when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus. I'm asking John, why did she go there? Or, let's put another of your witnesses on the stand, Mark, chapter 16, verse 1. Mark, tell us - why did Mary go there? And Mark tells us, "She went to anoint Him." Now, the Hebrew word for anoint is 'massahah' from which we get the word messiah in Hebrew and masih in Arabic. The root word for both Arabic and Hebrew is the same. Massahah means to rub, to massage, to anoint.

I'm asking, do Jews massage dead bodies after three days? And the answer is no. I say to you Christians, do you massage dead bodies after three days? Do you? The answer is no. We Muslims are the closest to the Jew in our ceremony of law. Do Muslims massage dead bodies after three days? The answer is no. Then why would they want to go and massage a dead, rotten body after three days? Within three hours, you know that rigor mortis sets in, the hardening of the cells, the rotting of the body, fermentation from within. In three days' time the body is rotten from inside. Such a rotting body when you massage it falls to pieces.

Why would she want to go and massage a dead, rotten body unless she was looking for a live person? You see, according to your witnesses, from only reading, she must have seen signs of life in the limp body as it was being taken down from the cross. She was about the only woman who, with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, had given the final rites to the body of Jesus. All his other disciples had forsaken Him and fled. They were not there. So if this woman had seen signs of life, she was not going to shout,

"There, He's alive! He's alive!" - to invite a sure death.

Three days later, she goes in, and she wants to anoint Him. And when she reaches the sepulchre, she finds that the stone is removed. The winding sheets are inside. So, she starts to cry. I'm asking, why was the stone removed and why were the winding sheets unwound? Because for a resurrected body you won't have to remove the stone to come out. For the resurrected body, you don't have to unwind the winding sheets to move, This is the need of this physical body. This mortal body. Because a poet tells us, "The stone walls do not a prison make nor iron bars a cage," For the soul, for the spirit, these things do not matter. Iron bars or walls. It's the need of His physical body. Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures, was watching her from wherever He was, not from heaven, but from this earth.

Because this tomb, if you remember, was privately owned property belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. This very rich, influential disciple had carved out of a rock a big, roomy chamber. Around that chamber was his vegetable garden. Now, don't tell me that this Jew was so generous that he was planting vegetables five miles out of town for other people's sheep and goats to graze upon.

Surely he must have bought his laborers quarters. Or for people who looked after his garden, or perhaps his country home where he went with his family for holidays, on the weekends.

Jesus is there and He watches this woman. He knows who she is and He knows why she's there. And He goes up to her. He finds her crying. So He says, "Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?" I'm asking, doesn't He know? Doesn't He know? Why does He ask such a silly question? I'm telling you, this is not a silly question. He's actually pulling her leg, metaphorically. She, supposing Him to be the gardener - I'm only reading you evidence as it is given. She supposed Him to be the gardener - I am asking, why does she suppose He's a gardener? Do resurrected bodies look like gardeners? Do they? I say, why does she suppose He's a gardener? I'm telling you, because He's disguised as a gardener. Why is He disguised as a gardener? I say, because He's afraid of the Jews. Why is He afraid of the Jews? I say, because He didn't die. And He didn't

conquer death. If He had died, and if He had conquered death, there's no need to be afraid anymore. Why not? Because the resurrected body can't die twice. Who says so? I say the Bible. What does it say? It says it is ordained unto all men, once to die, and after that, the judgment. You can't die twice.

So, if He had conquered death, there would be no need to be afraid. He's afraid, because He didn't die, So she, supposing Him to be the gardener, says, "Sir, if you have taken Him hence, tell me where have you laid Him to rest?" To relax, to recuperate, not where have you buried Him. "So that I might take him away." I alone .- one woman a frail Jewess. Imagine her carrying away a corpse of 160 pounds, at least, not 200 like me. A muscular carpenter supposed to be a young man in the prime of His life, at least 160 pounds. And another 100 pounds' worth of medicines around Him, John, chapter 19, verse 9. That makes Him 260.

Can you imagine this frail Jewess carrying this bundle of a corpse over 260 pounds, like a bundle of straw, like a super-woman in the American comics? And take Him where? Take Him home? Put Him under a bed - what does she want to do with Him? Does she want to pickle Him? What does she want to do with a rotting body. I ask you?

So Jesus - the joke has gone too far - says, "Mary..." The way He said "Mary," she recognized that this was Jesus. So, she wants to grab Him. I'm asking why. To bite Him? No! To pay respect. We Eastern people do that. She wants to grab Him. So Jesus says, "Touch Me not," I say, why not? Is He a bundle of electricity, a dynamo, that if she touches Him she will get electrocuted? Tell me, why not? I say because it hurts, You give me another reason why not, "Touch Me not for I am not yet ascended unto My Father." Is she blind? Can't she see the man is standing there beside her? What does He mean by "I'm not gone up" when He is here? He said, "I am not yet ascended unto My Father." In the language of the Jew, in the idiom of the Jew. He's saying, "I am not dead yet."

The problem arises: who moved the stone? How could she get to Him; who moved the stone? And the Christians are writing books upon books. One is Frank Morrison, a rationalist lawyer, He writes a book of 192 pages and he gives six hypotheses, At the

end of the 192 pages, when you are finished, you still haven't got the answer. Who moved the stone? And they're writing books upon books: who moved the stone? I can't understand why you can't see the very obvious. Why don't you read your books: These gospels, you have it in black and white in your own mother tongue. This is an anomaly that you read this book in your own mother tongue.

The Englishman in English, the Afrikaner in Afrikaans the Zulu in Zulu. Every language group has got the book in their own language. And each and every one is made to understand the exact opposite of what he is reading. Exact opposite. Not just merely misunderstanding.

I want you to prove me wrong. I'm telling you ... I'm only quoting word for word exactly as your witnesses have said it. Preserved it for us in black and white. I'm not attributing motives to them. I'm not saying that they are dishonest witnesses. I'm telling you. Please read this book of yours once more. Remove the blinders, and read it again. And tell me where I'm not understanding your language. You Englishmen, or you Afrikaners, you Zulu. You come back to me and if you feel that at the end of the talk. our honored visitor has not done justice to the subject, you call me - to your Kingdom Halls or to your school hall or anywhere you want to discuss it further with me. I am prepared to come.

Who moved the stone? I'm asking. It's very simple - they're talking about 20 men required. It is so huge, it needed a superman from America to move it. One and a half to two tons. I'm telling you, please read Mark and Matthew and he tells you that Joseph of Arimathea alone, put the stone into place. One man - alone. One man! If one man can put it into place, why can't two persons remove it, I ask you?

Now, all those happenings - you know that this was prophesied. It was ordained. And all the stories about what happened afterward - I'm telling you that Jesus Christ had given you a clear cut indication of what was going to happen. And that's also preserved in black and white in your testimony in the Gospel of St. Matthew, another of your witnesses, chapter 12. verses 38. 39 and 40. The Jews come again to Jesus. with a new request.

Now they say. "Master, we would have a sign of Thee." We want You to show a miracle

to convince us that You are the Messiah we are waiting for. You know, something supernatural like walking on the water, or flying in the air like a bird. Do something, man, then we will be convinced that You are a man of God, the Messiah we are waiting for.

So Jesus answers them. He says, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. But there shall be no sign given unto it, except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the belly of the earth." The only sign He was prepared to give them was the sign of Jonah. He has put all his eggs in one basket. He didn't say, "You know blind Bartimaeus, I healed him. You know that woman with issues who had been bleeding for years. She touched Me and she was healed. You know, I fed five thou- sand people with a few pieces of fish and a few pieces of bread. You see that fig tree. I dried it up from its very roots." Nothing of the kind. "This is the only sign I will give you, the sign of Jonah." I'm asking, what was that sign?

Well, go to the book of Jonah. I brought the book of Jonah for you - one page by God - it is only one page in the whole Bible. This is the book of Jonah. Four short chapters. It won't take you two minutes to read it. It's hard to find the book because, in a thousand pages, to find one page is difficult. But, you don't have to go there. If you went to Sunday school. you will remember what I'm telling you. I'm telling you that Jonah was sent to the Ninevites. You know, God Almighty told him, "Go to Nineveh," a city of 100,000 people. He was to warn them that they must repent in sack-cloth and ashes; they must humble themselves before the Lord. Jonah was despondent because these materialistic people -worldly people - "They will not listen to me. They will make a mockery of what I have to tell them." So instead of going to Nineveh, he goes to Joppa. That's what this one-page book tells you. He went to Joppa and was taken aboard a ship - he was going to Tarshish. You don't have to remember the names.

On the way, there's a storm. And according to the superstitions of these people, anyone who runs away from his master's command, who fails to do his duty, creates a turmoil at sea. So, they begin to question in the boat, who could be responsible for this storm.

Jonah realizes that as a prophet of God, he is a soldier of God. And as a soldier of God, he has no right to do things presumptuously on his own. So he says, "Look, I am the guilty party. God Almighty is after my blood. He wants to kill me, so in the process He's sinking the boat, and you innocent people will die. It will be better for you if you take me and you throw me overboard. Because God is really after my blood."

They say, "No, man, you know, you are such a good man. Perhaps you want to commit suicide. We won't help you to do that. We have a system of our own of discovering right from wrong," and that is what they call casting lots. Like heads or tails. So, according to the system of casting lots, Jonah was found to be the guilty man. And so they took him, and they threw him overboard.

Now I'm going to ask you a question. When they threw him overboard. was he dead or was he alive? Now, before you answer. I want you to bear in mind that Jonah had volunteered. He said, "Throw me." And when a man volunteers, you don't have to strangle him before throwing, you don't have to spear him before throwing, you don't have to break his arm or limb before throwing. You agree with me?

The man had volunteered. So when they threw him overboard, what does your common sense say? Was he dead or was he alive? Please, I want your help. Was he dead or was he alive? Alive. You get no prize for that - it was too simple a question. And - astonishingly the Jews say that he was alive, the Christians say he was alive and the Muslims say he was alive. How much nicer it would be if we would agree on every other thing.

We all agree that he was alive when he was thrown into that raging sea. And the storm subsided. Perhaps it was a coincidence. A fish comes and gobbles him. Dead or alive? Was he dead or was he alive? Alive? Thank you very much.

From the fish's belly, according to the book of Jonah, he cries to God for help. Do dead men pray? Do they pray? Dead people, do they pray? No! So he was alive. Three days and three nights the fish takes him around the ocean. Dead or alive? Alive. On the third day, walking on the seashore, I'm asking - dead or alive? Alive. What does Jesus say? He said, "For as Jonah was." Just like Jonah. "For as Jonah was, so shall the Son of Man be,"

referring to Himself. How was Jonah - dead or alive? Alive. How was Jesus for three days and three nights in the tomb according to the Christian belief? How was He? Dead or alive? Dead.

He was dead according to our belief. In other words, He's unlike Jonah. Can't you see? He says, I shall be like Jonah and you are telling me - there's one thousand two hundred million Christians of the world - that He was unlike Jonah. He said, I will be like Jonah, you say He was unlike Jonah. If I was a Jew, I would not accept Him as my Messiah. I am told in the Qur'an that Jesus was the Messiah. I accept. He was one of the mightiest messengers of God - I accept. I believe in His miraculous birth. I believe that He gave life to the dead by God's permission. And He healed those born blind and the leper by God's permission. But if I was a Jew, according to the sign that He has given, He failed. Jonah is alive - Jesus is dead. They are not alike. I don't know in what language you can make them alike - that they are like one another. So the clever man. you know, the doctor of theology, the professor of religion, he tells me that I don't understand the Bible.

Your Bible, I don't understand. Why don't I understand the Bible? He says, "You see Mr. Deedat, Jesus Christ is emphasizing the time factor." Note, He uses the word "three" four times. For Jonah was three days and three nights. so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights. He uses the word "three" four times.

In other words, He's emphasizing the time factor - not whether He was dead or alive. I'm tellinq you that there is nothing miraculous in a time factor, Whether the man was dead for three minutes or three hours or three weeks, that's not a miracle.

The miracle, if there is one at all, is that you expect a man to be dead and he's not dead. When Jonah was thrown into the sea, we expect him to die. He didn't die, so it's a miracle. A fish comes and gobbles him - he ought to die. He didn't die, so it's a miracle. Three days and three nights of suffocation and heat in the whale's belly, He ought to die: he didn't die. It's a miracle, it's a miracle because you expect a man to die and he didn't die.

When you expect a man to die, and if he dies, what's so miraculous about that? I ask

you, what's miraculous about that? If a gunman took a gun and fired six shots into the heart of a man and he dies, is that a miracle? No. But if he laughs it off. if he is still alive and walking with us and if, after the six shots tear his heart to pieces, he laughs: ha ha ha ha --- he's alive. So we say it's a miracle. Can't you see? The miracle is when we expect a man to die and he doesn't die. When the man who is expected to die, dies, it's no miracle.

We expect Jesus also to die. For what He had been through, if He died, there is no miracle. There's no sign. If He didn't die, it's a miracle - can't you see? So He says, "No, no. It is the time factor." Drowning men clutch at straws - drowning women do the same. He says, "No. it's the time factor." I say, did He fulfill that? He says, "Of course, He fulfilled that." I say, how did He fulfill it? Look, it's very easy to make statements. HOW did He fulfill it? I say, watch. When was He crucified, I ask you? The whole Christian world says on Good Friday. Britain, France, Germany. America, Lesotho. Zambia - in South Africa we have a public holiday - every Christian nation commemorates Good Friday. I am asking, what makes Good Friday good?

So the Christian says, "Christ died for our sins, That makes it good." So He was crucified on the Good Friday. He says, yes. Yes. I say, when was He crucified - morning or afternoon? So the Christian says in the afternoon. How long was He on the cross? Some say three hours, some say six hours. I say, I am not going to argue with you. Whatever you say, I accept. You know, when we read the Scriptures, they tell us that when they wanted to crucify Jesus, they were in a hurry. And they were in such a hurry that Josh tells us in his book, The Resurrection Factor, that within some 12 hours, there were six separate trials. Six trials He went through.

These things only happen in films. These sort of things - six trials in 12 hours from midnight to the next morning and on, only take place on films. But I believe whatever you tell me. Whatever you tell me, I accept. So the Jews were in a hurry to put Him up on the cross. Do you know why? Because of the general public. Jesus was a Jew. The general public loved Him. The man had healed the blind and the lepers and the sick and had raised the dead. He had fed so many thousands of people with bread and fish. He

was a hero, and if they discovered - the general public - that their hero's life was in danger, there would have been a riot.

So, they had a midnight trial. Early in the morning they took Him to Pilate. Pilate says, "He is not my kettle of fish - take Him to Herod." Herod says, "I'm not interested - take Him back to Pilate. And hurry, hurry, hurry." And they held six trials within 12 hours. Six. As if they had nothing else to do, but I believe what you tell me.

They succeeded in putting Him up on the cross, according to your witnesses. According to your witnesses. But as much as they were in a hurry to put Him up, they were in a hurry to bring Him down. You know why? Because at sunset on Friday, at six o'clock, the Sabbath starts. You see, the Jews count the days, night and day, night and day. We Muslims count our days, night and day, night and day. Not day and night. We count night and day. Six o'clock, our day begins in the evening.

So, before sunset, the body must come down because they were told in the book of Deuteronomy that they must see to it that nobody is hanging on the tree on the Sabbath day. "That thy land be not defiled which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." So quickly, quickly, they brought the body down and they gave Him a burial bath, and they put a hundred pounds of medicine around Him. And they put Him into the sepulchre. Not a grave - a sepulchre. A big, roomy chamber above ground. So it's already evening. From three o'clock in the afternoon, for whatever you do, the details are given in Josh's book. Burial baths normally take more than an hour. You read the details about how the Jew give a burial bath to the dead. That takes more than an hour itself. But let's say they succeeded in doing all these things in a hurry, hurry. You know they were in a hurry. Six trials in 12 hours. Now they put Him into the sepulchre.

By the time they put Him in, it's already evening. So watch - watch my fingers. Friday night He's supposed to be in the grave. Watch my finger. Saturday day, He still is supposed to be in the grave. Am I right? Saturday night, He still is supposed to be in the grave. But Sunday morning, the first day of the week, when Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb, the tomb was empty.

That's what your witnesses say. I am asking - how many days and how many nights? You

remember, I said, supposed, supposed, supposed... You know why? Because the Bible doesn't say actually when He came out. He could have come out Friday night. The Bible doesn't say how He came. So, Friday night, Saturday day, Saturday night. I'm asking, how many days and how many nights? Please, if you can see, if your eyes are not defective, tell me how many? How many do you see? Right! Two nights and a day. Look at this. Is it the same as He said, for as Jonah was three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights? Three and three. Look at this: two and one. Please tell me now it means the same thing.

I want to know what you are reading. I want to know what you are reading in your own book! The man is telling you that what is going to happen will be like Jonah. And the sign of Jonah is a miracle. And the only miracle you can attribute to this man, Jonah, is that we expected him to die and he didn't die. Jesus - we expect Him also to die. If He died, it is not a sign. If He didn't die, it is a sign.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Can you see, the people have been programmed. We all get programmed from childhood. When I went to America, and spoke at the University in San Francisco, I said you people are brainwashed. I told them, "You are brainwashed." Of course, I could afford to talk to them - the American will take it. He is the almighty. You know, great guy. He can take it. So I said, "You people are brainwashed." So one American, a professor, interjected, "No, not brainwashed - programmed." I said, "I beg your pardon - programmed." So, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I hope, by the time this meeting is over, you will be re-programmed into reading the book as it is, and not as you are made to understand.

I would also suggest that you read Genesis chapter 19: verse 30 till 38. Will you be proud of yourself to teach this to your daughter or to girls in school or college?

[19:30] Now Lot went up out of Zoar and settled in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; so he lived in a cave with his two daughters.

[19:31] And the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world.

[19:32] Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father."

[19:33] So they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and

lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose.

[19:34] On the next day, the firstborn said to the younger, "Look, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father."

[19:35] So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger rose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she rose.

[19:36] Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father.

[19:37] The firstborn bore a son, and named him Moab; he is the ancestor of the Moabites to this day.

[19:38] The younger also bore a son and named him Ben-ammi; he is the ancestor of the Ammonites to this day.

Or may be you like to read this:

Genesis chapter 38 verse 15 to 30.

[38:15] When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute, for she had covered her face.

[38:16] He went over to her at the road side, and said, "Come, let me come in to you," for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, "What will you give me, that you may come in to me?"

[38:17] He answered, "I will send you a kid from the flock." And she said, "Only if you give me a pledge, until you send it."

[38:18] He said, "What pledge shall I give you?" She replied, "Your signet and your cord, and the staff that is in your hand." So he gave them to her, and went in to her, and she conceived by him.

[38:19] Then she got up and went away, and taking off her veil she put on the garments of her widowhood.

[38:20] When Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite, to recover the pledge from the woman, he could not find her.

[38:21] He asked the townspeople, "Where is the temple prostitute who was at Enaim by the wayside?" But they said, "No prostitute has been here."

[38:22] So he returned to Judah, and said, "I have not found her; moreover the townspeople said, 'No prostitute has been here.'"

[38:23] Judah replied, "Let her keep the things as her own, otherwise we will be laughed at; you see, I sent this kid, and you could not find her."

[38:24] About three months later Judah was told, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the whore; moreover she is pregnant as a result of whoredom." And Judah said, "Bring her out, and let her be burned."

[38:25] As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in- law, "It was the owner of these who made me pregnant." And she said, "Take note, please, whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff."

[38:26] Then Judah acknowledged them and said, "She is more in the right than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah." And he did not lie with her again.

[38:27] When the time of her delivery came, there were twins in her womb.

[38:28] While she was in labor, one put out a hand; and the midwife took and bound on his hand a crimson thread, saying, "This one came out first."

[38:29] But just then he drew back his hand, and out came his brother; and she said, "What a breach you have made for yourself!" Therefore he was named Perez.

[38:30] Afterward his brother came out with the crimson thread on his hand; and he was named Zerah.

And there are many examples of such a type in your HOLY BOOK.

We need not worry about the Quran because Allah says:

{We have, without doubt, sent down the Reminder [i.e., the Quran]; and We will assuredly guard it [from corruption].} (Al-Hijr 15:9)

Have you seen any version of the Quran till now?

Maybe you need to learn about how to face a challenge when you read the Quran and see what Allah says and find out if HE knows how to protect His Book?

I hope you can find out things for yourself and focus on the points I mentioned to you only.

Mahmoud