Christian Counter Apologetics

Some examples

If Christianity is so great, how come we hear of a higher divorce rate among Christians, alcoholism and drug abuse, priests raping children and homosexuals being married in churches?

Divorce is not allowed in Christianity except for adultery (Matthew 19:3-9). Alcohol, drugs, or any destructive habits to the body are totally forbidden in Christianity (1Corinthians 6:19&20). Fornication with children or adults is condemned in Christianity (1 Corinthians 7:18). Homosexuality is forbidden in Christianity (Romans 1:26&27), and was called abomination in the Bible (Leviticus 18:22). Because of homosexuality God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah ( Genesis 19:25).

It is clear that those who commit such sins, although they may be called "Christians," are actually not, because they don't follow the teachings of Christianity. The holy Book of any religion is the only base to judge a religion, not those who break its commandments.

The same rule applies to Islam. We don't judge Islam by the behaviour of Muslims but by the teachings of the Qur’an and Hadith.

How can Christians worship three gods? Is it conceivable that God gives birth to a son?

Christianity doesn't believe in three gods, but one true God (James 2:19, Deuteronomy 6:4).

It is clear from both the Old and New Testaments that God is a triune God. The concept of a triune God is the most logical because it reveals God as sufficient in Himself. As Christians, we believe in God being one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is not 1+1+1=3, but rather 1x1x1=1.

The belief of Jesus being "the Son" of God doesn't come from the physical sense of the word. It doesn t mean that God, at a certain time, had sex and produced a child. Jesus is the Son of God from eternity.

To say that Jesus is the Son of God is to mean that He, spiritually, was with God from the beginning. (John1:1) However, at a certain point of time in history, he was miraculously incarnated into a human being through the Virgin Mary (Matthew 2:1), to redeem our fallen human race.

How can you argue that the Bible is not corrupted in the light of the existence of so many different versions of the Bible?

The different versions of the Bible, are different translations, using different languages and different dialects. All these translations are taken from the original texts and have been done by experts as accurately as humanly possible. If there are variations in the wording of the texts they are because of the different shades of meanings that the original words could carry. However, the essence of the Bible is the same. The same situation applies also to the Qur’an. There are many translations of the Qur’an, which differ from one another and those who don't speak Arabic have to rely on the translations.

The claim of the corruption of the Bible is an idea that Muslims had to invent to justify the many discrepancies of the Qur’an when compared to the Bible. For somebody to claim that the Bible in our hands is corrupt, they must be able to present the correct copy as evidence. There is no such correct copy of the Bible other than the one we have. Extant (currently existing) manuscripts of the Bible dating to the 4th and 5th centuries -- long before the birth of Islam -- are found to agree completely with the text we now have. The oldest extant fragment of the book of John dates to about 125 A.D.

The Qur’an actually testified to the validity of the Bible and repeatedly said so (see Sura 4:47; 2: 41, 91; 20:133; 29:46). Accordingly, Muslims can not argue that Christians and Jews corrupted their Bible before the birth of Islam.

On the other hand, It is inconceivable that the corruption of the Bible took place after Islam, either. It was virtually impossible for this to have happened, seven centuries after the birth of Christianity, and after Christianity had spread all over the world. By that time Christianity had divided into many denominations that were not even talking to one another, much less sitting down together and agreeing on a conspiracy to forge their Book. Also, how could they have kept this conspiracy a secret without having somebody coming out and disclosing it? This, in addition to the fact that the Bible had by then been translated into many languages, and so to corrupt the Bible one would have had to collect all the existing Bibles in the world and destroy them, which would have been impossible to do.

The Qur’an says that God revealed the Injil (the Gospel), to Jesus. However, Christians have four different Gospels written by four different men. How do you explain this?

Contrary to what the Qur’an says, there was no such thing as an "Injil" that was given, revealed or taught to Jesus. No such book was ever found, or referred to in any historical references. When Mohammed came in, 7 centuries after Christ, the four Gospels were already known all over the known world, including the Arabian Peninsula. The Qur’an never claimed that there was anything wrong with the Book of the Christians, and never revealed a corrected version of it.

The word "injil" (gospel) is derived from the Greek language to mean "good news." St. Paul provided a definition of the Gospel in (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), "Brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel, which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand: By which also ye are saved. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." Although there are four gospels, but all of the four gospels are witnesses to that one gospel: that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again. All ended by stating this fact.

Jesus never ordered his disciples to record his words. He promised his disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit to dwell in them, to teach them all things and remind them of all what Jesus had done and said (John 14:26). On the day of Pentecost, Jesus fulfilled his promise, when the Holy Spirit dwelt in the disciples (Acts2: 1-4, 15-22).

The four Gospels were written by four different men, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The gospels narrate, from different viewpoints, what Jesus did and said during his ministry. They don't contradict, but rather complement one another.

What is the proof that the Crucifixion actually took place? How could an all-mighty God die at the hand of humans? Why would God need to die to save humanity, anyway? Doesn't the all-powerful God possess the authority to forgive whom He pleases, and when He pleases, without the need to die on a cross?

The story of the Crucifixion is a fact not fiction; it has been recorded by many reliable sources. Here are just a few examples:

Historians' Testimony such as the Greek Tacitos (A.D.55), the Jewish Falavius Josephus (A.D.37-97), The Romans Pliny the Younger and Seutonius, and many others who referred to the Crucifixion of Jesus in their writings.
The Jewish Talmud Testimony (Refer to the 1943 Amsterdam edition, page 42)
The Old Testament Testimony as it has been recorded in the many prophecies pointing to the Crucifixion (Genesis 3:15, Psalm 22:16, Isaiah 53, and Zechariah 11: 12-13).
Jesus' own Testimony in the New Testament predicting his own crucifixion (Matthew 17:22-23, Mark 8:31, and Luke 9:22).
The Gospels' Testimony.
The Apostles' Testimony (Acts 2:22-23, Romans 3:24, Romans 10:9-10, 1Corinthians 1:18), and in many other places, and their willingness to die for proclaiming that truth.
The Nicene Creed Testimony in A.D.325.

The Crucifixion of Jesus was not an accidental incident that happened by chance at some point in history. It was a divine and eternal plan. From the beginning, before man fell into sin, God knew what would happen and prepared a way to save man (1Peter 1:18-21, Acts2: 23-24).

When man disobeyed God by eating from the forbidden tree, he committed a gross sin against God. This sin is punishable by eternal death. The judgment came to Adam and his seed after him, who inherited the fallen nature (Romans 6:23, Ezekiel 18:20).

God can only act according to His basic attributes. Because God is faithful, He can not lie, and because He is just, He can not let sin go unpunished. God's plan for salvation must satisfy both His love and His justice (Psalms 85:10).

This could only be accomplished when God took human flesh and accepted death on the cross on our behalf, to pay the penalty of our sin (John 3:16; Romans 5: 8; 1John 4:10).

Why Christians and Jews don't believe in Mohammed, when the Bible predicted his coming?

Muslims cite many references in both Old and New Testaments to prove that Mohammed was prophesied in the Bible. However, a close examination of these references shows that they don't fit Mohammed. These are references that usually point either to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Here are the most quoted examples:

In the Old Testament: " The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deuteronomy 18:15 & 18)

This can't possibly refer to Mohammed. Mohammed is the descendant of Ishmael, and the Jews never looked at the descendants of Ishmael as "brothers." On the other hand Jesus fits the description "like unto Moses." Jesus was a Hebrew, as was Moses, while Mohamed was not. Jesus performed signs and wonders, as did Moses, and Mohamed did not. Peter, in the New Testament, left no doubt about the fact that this prophecy applies to Jesus. (See Acts 3:20-26)

In the New Testament: " But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. "(John 16:26).

Muslims say that the Greek word which was translated "the comforter", actually means " the praised one" or "Mahmoud" in Arabic, in reference to Mohammed. It is true that there is a word, similar in pronunciation, which means "the praised one," however the word used in the Gospels is different and is accurately translated to "the Comforter." This, no doubt, refers to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a spirit, while Mohammed was flesh. The Holy Spirit was sent to the disciples, but Mohammed came in 6 centuries after the death of the disciples. The Holy Spirit was said that he would "dwell" with the disciples (John14: 17). On the other hand Mohammed never saw the disciples. It was said that the world would "not see" the Holy Spirit, but people saw Mohammed.

Source: http://www.islamreview.com/faq.htm

IHS