Evolving Texts or Accurate Summaries?
Bassam Zawadi has written a few articles where he aims to prove that the portrait of Jesus changes throughout time from one Gospel to another. In this current article (*), Zawadi wants to show how Jesus healing powers have improved from Mark to Matthew.
This will give us an opportunity to once again demonstrate that these feeble attempts of undermining the veracity of the Gospels do not achieve their goal but simply expose the bias and inconsistency of the Muslim polemicists. For instance, in light of the fact that different authors, not one, wrote the Gospels it is therefore perfectly normal to find them reporting the same event with verbal differences since one author may have wished to summarize an account, another provide additional details, and yet another arrange his material in a topical order as opposed to following a strict chronological sequence. Here is an example of a writer who has telescoped or summarized his reports:
"As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them. But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. And he said to them, Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have. And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, Have you anything here to eat? They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them. Then he said to them, These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled. Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high. Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God." Luke 24:36-53
The impression given here is that Jesus appeared to the disciples and ascended into heaven that very first Easter Sunday that is until we read what Luke writes in his prologue to Acts:
"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all the things Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God." Acts 1:1-3
Luke is clearly aware that Jesus did not ascend to heaven on the same day he rose from the dead, but appeared to his followers over a 40-day period. This demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Luke has in fact summarized Jesus resurrection appearances in Luke 24.
As we have demonstrated before (*, *, *, *, *) and will do so again here (Lord Jesus permitting), these differences do not change the meaning or significance of the event and do not call into question the accuracy of the Gospels. The Gospels are completely trustworthy, especially when they are viewed in light of the writing methods adopted by historians of that time period.
With the foregoing in perspective we can now focus on Zawadis arguments.
Zawadi seeks to remind his readers that ALL (not many, not some) Christians agree that Mark precedes Matthew in time, which is nothing more than an overstatement. Not all agree to this dating since there are scholars who feel that Matthew was written before Mark. Be that as it may it really bears no affect on the inspiration and reliability of the Gospels whether one accepts Mark as the first Gospel that was composed or whether Matthew was.
Zawadi begins his criticisms:
I would first like to quote from the Gospel of Mark...
32That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. 33The whole town gathered at the door, 34and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.
Note that the verse states that ALL the sick and demon possessed people were brought to Jesus and he healed many of them. It did not say that he healed ALL of them.
Lets read this version in the Gospel of Matthew...
When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.
Matthew realizing the problem of the account in Mark edited the story to make it seem like that Jesus healed ALL the people brought to him. However, in Mark we see that ALL were brought to Jesus and then Jesus healed many of them. Matthew is obviously trying to uplift the character of Jesus by revising the story to show that Jesus healed ALL of the many that were brought to him and not the other way around as shown in Mark.
In this example Zawadi has shown that he hasnt read his sources carefully which accounts for his gross misunderstanding. Paying careful attention to the wording will show that neither account contradicts the other but rather demonstrates that both inspired authors are essentially saying the same thing.
Mark does not say that Jesus only healed many of those who came to him as opposed to curing them all. Rather, Marks point in verse 34 is that the total number of all people who came to him to be healed was large. It is Zawadi who adds "of them" after the word "many". It is not found in the text. Reading this story in its proper context, will make it even clearer. Two things happen before the above quoted verses. Mark 1:21-28 reports how Jesus drives out an evil spirit from a man. Verses 29-31 report how Jesus heals a woman, Simon's mother-in-law, from a fever. The news about Jesus spread quickly (v. 28). That same evening people bring all their sick and demon-possessed to Jesus (v. 32), and he healed them. There is absolutely no indication in the text that Jesus did not heal all who were brought to him. Verses 33-34 then add the information that we are talking not only about a few healings, but the whole town had gathered (v. 33), and Jesus healed many who were physically sick with various diseases and he drove out many demons. Matthew makes the very same point, only in the reverse order, namely that many were brought to him and he healed all of them. Another trivial difference is that Mark mentions first the sick and then the demon-possessed, Matthew mentions first the demon-possessed and then the sick, but both mention these two specific groups.
Another example is found in the Gospel of Mark...
22They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. 23He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man's eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, "Do you see anything?" 24He looked up and said, "I see people; they look like trees walking around." 25Once more Jesus put his hands on the man's eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.
Here we apparently see that Jesus had some difficulty in healing this blind person. When Jesus first spit on the blind person's eyes the blind person did not get cured right away. Jesus had to put his hands on the man's eyes a second time in order to completely cure him and then the man was able to see clearly.
Zawadi is incorrect to assume that Jesus had difficulty in healing the blind man. Mark has a purpose in highlighting the fact that Jesus gradually healed his blindness, since this gradual healing served as an illustration of the disciples progressive illumination:
"The importance of this story for Mark is that it anticipates the opening of the eyes of the disciples. This is the second in a pair of incidents that only Mark records (the first one is 7:24-37) and that fulfill the OT messianic expectations of Isa 35:5-6. Mark uses both incidents to lead up to the full revelation of Jesus' messianic dignity to the disciples (8:27-30). Their eyes too were opened, not by human perception, but by the miracle of God's gracious revelation- which was as much a miracle as the opening of the blind man's eyes." (Kenneth L. Barker & John R. Kohlenberger III, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary Volume 2: New Testament [Zondervan Publishing House; Grand Rapids MI, 1994], p. 166; bold emphasis ours)
The St. Joseph Edition of the New American Bible, a favorite Bible version of Shabir Ally (from whom Zawadi has basically taken his arguments), states:
[22-26] Jesus actions and the gradual cure of the blind man probably have the same purpose as in the case deaf man (Mk 7, 31-37). Some commentators regard the cure as an intended symbol of the gradual enlightenment of the disciples concerning Jesus messiahship. (Source)
That Christs miracles often served to illustrate certain spiritual truths can be seen from the Gospel of Mark itself.
"When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw him and were terrified. Immediately he spoke to them and said, Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid. Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened." Mark 6:47-52
And after Jesus second miraculous multiplication of food where he fed four thousand men, Mark records:
"Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side. The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. Be careful, Jesus warned them. 'Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod. They discussed this with one another and said, It is because we have no bread. Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And dont you remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up? Twelve, they replied. And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up? They answered, Seven. He said to them, Do you still not understand?" Mark 8:13-21
Christ expects the disciples to see the spiritual significance behind his miraculous feeding of the multitudes. What makes this rather interesting is that this conversation immediately precedes the healing of the blind man, reinforcing the point that the blind mans gradual healing signified the gradual enlightenment of the disciples. In other words, the point Mark wants to convey through the healing of the blind is that in spite of Jesus repeated miracles and instructions the disciples were still unable to understand the significance of these events and it took them awhile before they could grasp the whole picture.
To repeat: Jesus gradual healing of the blind man was not the result of Christ having a hard time performing this miracle, that is merely Zawadis simplistic reading of the text by ignoring its immediate and overall contexts. Rather, this miracle was deliberately performed slowly so as to serve as an illustration of the disciples slow process of perceiving and understanding the person and teachings of Christ.
However, we see that in Matthew Jesus had no problem curing blind people...
28When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" "Yes, Lord," they replied. 29Then he touched their eyes and said, "According to your faith will it be done to you"; 30and their sight was restored. Jesus warned them sternly, "See that no one knows about this." 31But they went out and spread the news about him all over that region.
This is simply an example of Matthew having telescoped or summarized the story, as well as providing an additional detail omitted by Mark.
A third example....
Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor." He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.
Here we see that Mark says that Jesuscould not do certain miracles.
Apparently Matthew was not pleased with this view and decided to revise the story...
But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.
Here we see that Matthew said that Jesusdid not do many miracles.
Do you see the difference? In Mark we see that he said it as if Jesus did not have the ability to do the miracles and in Matthew we see that Jesus chose not to do the miracles.
Zawadi has erroneously assumed that Marks "could not" means that Christ didnt have the ability to do miracles as opposed to Christ not wanting to do them. To show the futility behind such reasoning compare the follow citation where Paul uses a similar expression:
"Brothers, I could not (ouk eeduneetheen) address you as spiritual but as worldlymere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly." 1 Corinthians 3:1-3
The references are not saying that Paul didnt have the ability to speak in a spiritual manner, since he clearly could:
"This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." 1 Corinthians 2:13
But that such language would not benefit the Corinthians since they could not perceive it. With this in mind we now move to the context of Mark, which Zawadi did not present, in order to see how this in itself refutes his eisegesis:
"Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. Where did this man get these things? they asked. Whats this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isnt this the carpenter? Isnt this Marys son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Arent his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. Jesus said to them, Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor. He could not (ouk edunato) do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people AND HEAL THEM. And he was amazed at their lack of faith. Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village. Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two AND GAVE THEM AUTHORITY OVER EVIL SPIRITS. These were his instructions: Take nothing for the journey except a staffno bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them. They went out and preached that people should repent. They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them." Mark 6:1-13
Notice that Mark is quick to mention that Jesus did perform a few healings before departing and that Christ even gave his disciples the power to perform miracles such as casting out demons!
In light of the foregoing it is rather evident that Mark is not stating that Jesus could not perform miracles there because of any lack of power, but due to the peoples lack of faith. Marks point is that Christ basically would not perform a miracle to please the unbelieving crowds due to their wicked hearts.
Matthew has therefore simply made explicit what Marks Gospel makes implicit, i.e. that Jesus had the power to do miracles but refused to do so due to the unbelief of the people. As noted Bible expositor John Gill wrote:
And he could there do no mighty work
Or miracle; not that Christ had no power in himself to work miracles, though their unbelief and contempt of him were very great; but it was not fit and proper that he should do any there, since such were their prejudices against him: it is an usual way of speaking with the Hebrews, when either it is not "fit" and proper that a thing should be done, or they "will" not do it, to say it cannot be done; see (Genesis 19:22) (37:4); and even it is said of God himself, "So that the Lord could no longer bear, because of your evil doings", (Jeremiah 44:22) . Not but that he could if he would, but he would not; nor was it fit and proper that he should; the same is the sense here: besides, in (Matthew 13:58) it is said, "he did not many mighty works there"; and so the Arabic version here, "and he did not many mighty works there"; he did not think it proper to do any of any great consequence, nor did he. Wherefore the Jew has no reason to object this to the divinity of Christ, as if there was a want of power in him. Christ is omnipotent, and he has given proof of his almighty power, by the miracles which he has wrought; and though he wrought no mighty work "there", yet he wrought many elsewhere, which sufficiently attest the truth of his proper deity: the emphasis lies upon the word there; though he did not work any considerable miracle in that place, he did in others; which shows, that it was not a defect of power in him, that was the reason of it, but something else; and Matthew gives the reason of it, and says, it was "because of their unbelief": not that their unbelief was an over match for his power; he could have removed that, if he had thought fit, but he did not do it; he, who is the author and finisher of faith, could have took away their unbelief, as the man that brought his dumb child to Christ, concluded he could; and therefore said to him, "Lord, help my unbelief", (Mark 9:24) . Christ sometimes required of the persons he was about to heal, faith in him, that he could heal them; and so did his apostles, (Matthew 9:28) (Acts 14:9). Not that faith contributed any thing to the cure, but it was the way and means in which Christ was pleased to communicate his healing virtue: besides, when persons applied to him for healing, and expressed their faith in him, it gave him an opportunity of working a miracle for that purpose; but now these people did not so much as ask such a favour of him, and so gave him no occasion of doing any mighty work; for which reason it may be said, he could not, no opportunity offering: and moreover, seeing they disbelieved him, and rejected him as the Messiah, they were unworthy of having any wrought among them; and it was but just and right, to do none: nay, it was rather an instance of kindness not to do any among them; since had he, and they had remained impenitent and unbelieving, as he knew they would, these would have been aggravations of their condemnation. (Source)
The foregoing data conclusively demonstrates that Zawadi has not been able to prove that Matthew has improved upon the Lord Jesus healing abilities in order to cover up the limitations imposed upon Christ by Marks Gospel. Both inspired records accurately present Jesus as he truly is, the all-powerful Son of God and risen Lord sent to redeem sinners by his death on the cross.
The Qurans Evolving Stories and Contradictions
As the readers can see by now, we truly enjoy assisting Zawadi in using his methods consistently and fairly so as to insure that these issues that he raises are valid objections. Since we want to make sure that his points are not merely polemical tactics aimed at undermining Christianity, but sincere objections why he cannot accept the truth, we have therefore decided once again to use his own arguments against the Quran to see whether they can meet his own criteria for authenticity. If the Quran fails to meet his standards then he must reject Muhammad as a false prophet and the Quran as a false book, much like he has chosen to reject Gods truth the Holy Bible, otherwise he will be exposed for deceptively and inconsistently using polemical points against Christianity which he would never use against his own religious texts.
Since Zawadi raised three examples that he believed proved his point we will therefore follow suit and limit ourselves to three examples from the Quran as well.
The story of Satans fall is recorded several times throughout the Quran, yet each time it is told the conversations and details are never the same. Note the glaring contradictions and details:
And certainly We created you, then We fashioned you, then We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam. So they did obeisance except Iblis; he was not of those who did obeisance. He said: What hindered you so that you did not make obeisance when I commanded you? He said: I am better than he: Thou hast created me of fire, while him Thou didst create of dust. He said: Then get forth from this (state), for it does not befit you to behave proudly therein. Go forth, therefore, surely you are of the abject ones. He said: Respite me until the day when they are raised up. He said: Surely you are of the respited ones. He said: As Thou hast caused me to remain disappointed I will certainly lie in wait for them in Thy straight path. Then I will certainly come to them from before them and from behind them, and from their right-hand side and from their left-hand side; and Thou shalt not find most of them thankful. He said: Get out of this (state), despised, driven away; whoever of them will follow you, I will certainly fill hell with you all. S. 7:11-18 Shakir
Satan in his anger supposedly says that he will ambush those who are on the straight path, which to the Quran means Muslim believers (cf. Suras 4:175; 6:39, 161). Yet in other versions of the same story Satan promises to do the exact opposite:
He said: O Iblis! what excuse have you that you are not with those who make obeisance? He said: I am not such that I should make obeisance to a mortal whom Thou hast created of the essence of black mud fashioned in shape. He said: Then get out of it, for surely you are driven away: And surely on you is curse until the day of judgment. He said: My Lord! then respite me till the time when they are raised. He said: So surely you are of the respited ones Till the period of the time made known. He said: My Lord! because Thou hast made life evil to me, I will certainly make (evil) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate EXCEPT THY SERVANTS FROM AMONG THEM, THE DEVOTED ONES. He said: This is a right way with Me: Surely, as regards My servants, you have no authority over them except those who follow you of the deviators. And surely Hell is the promised place of them all: It has seven gates; for every gate there shall be a separate party of them. S. 15:32-44 Shakir
Satan here says that he will cause everyone to deviate except Allahs servants. Similarly:
He said: O Iblis! what prevented you that you should do obeisance to him whom I created with My two hands? Are you proud or are you of the exalted ones? He said: I am better than he; Thou hast created me of fire, and him Thou didst create of dust. He said: Then get out of it, for surely you are driven away: And surely My curse is on you to the day of judgment. He said: My Lord! then respite me to the day that they are raised. He said: Surely you are of the respited ones, Till the period of the time made known. He said: Then by Thy Might I will surely make them live an evil life, all, EXCEPT THY SERVANTS FROM AMONG THEM, THE PURIFIED ONES. He said: The truth then is and the truth do I speak: That I will most certainly fill hell with you and with those among them who follow you, all. S. 38:75-85
In this account Satan says he will not cause Allahs servants to live an evil life, which means that he will not seek to tempt them from living contrary to Allahs will. As if this werent bad enough:
Behold! We said to the angels: "Bow down unto Adam": They bowed down except Iblis: He said, "Shall I bow down to one whom Thou didst create from clay?" He said: "Seest Thou? this is the one whom Thou hast honoured above me! If Thou wilt but respite me to the Day of Judgment, I will surely bring his descendants under my sway - all but a few!" (God) said: "Go thy way; if any of them follow thee, verily Hell will be the recompense of you (all)- an ample recompense. Lead to destruction those whom thou canst among them, with thy (seductive) voice; make assaults on them with thy cavalry and thy infantry; mutually share with them wealth and children; and make promises to them." But Satan promises them nothing but deceit. "As for My servants, no authority shalt thou have over them:" Enough is thy Lord for a Disposer of affairs. S. 17:61-65 Y. Ali
Note how this account contradicts the previous three since there Satan informs Allah of his plans only after he has been rebuked and granted respite. Yet here he has already revealed his dastardly plan even before Allah has a chance of punishing him for refusing to worship Adam! Talk about confusion!
To summarize the problems thus far, even apart from the major variations in their speeches (i.e. they dont even use the same Arabic words in their conversations even though these Suras are narrating the same exact event), note that:
Here we examine the story of Zechariah and the birth of his son John the Baptist:
Then Zachariah prayed unto his Lord and said: My Lord! Bestow upon me of Thy bounty goodly offspring. Lo! Thou art the Hearer of Prayer. And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: Allah giveth thee glad tidings of (a son whose name is) John, (who cometh) to confirm a word from Allah lordly, chaste, a prophet of the righteous. He said: My Lord! How can I have a son when age hath overtaken me already and my wife is barren? (The angel) answered: So (it will be). Allah doeth what He will. He said: My Lord! Appoint a token for me. (The angel) said: The token unto thee (shall be) that thou shalt not speak unto mankind three days except by signs. Remember thy Lord much, and praise (Him) in the early hours of night and morning. S. 3:38-41 Pickthall
A mention of the mercy of thy Lord unto His servant Zachariah. When he cried unto his Lord a cry in secret Saying: My Lord! Lo! the bones of me wax feeble and my head is shining with grey hair, and I have never been unblest in prayer to Thee, my Lord. Lo! I fear my kinsfolk after me, since my wife is barren. Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, acceptable (unto Thee). (It was said unto him): O Zachariah! Lo! We bring thee tidings of a son whose name is John; we have given the same name to none before (him). He said: My Lord! How can I have a son when my wife is barren and I have reached infirm old age? He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me, even as I created thee before, when thou wast naught. He said: My Lord! Appoint for me some token. He said: Thy token is that thou, with no bodily defect, shalt not speak unto mankind three nights. Then he came forth unto his people from the sanctuary, and signified to them: Glorify your Lord at break of day and fall of night. S. 19:2-11 Pickthall
As one carefully examines these parallel passages the following questions should naturally come to mind:
As if the above examples werent enough to prove that Allah isnt able to recall the exact words he used in the past, note specifically the following instructions supposedly given to Israel:
And remember We said: "ENTER this town, and eat OF THE PLENTY therein as ye wish; and enter the gate prostrating (with humility), and say: Forgive (us); We shall forgive you your faults and increase (the portion of) those who do good." But the transgressors changed the word from that which had been given them; so We sent on the transgressors a plague from heaven, for that they INFRINGED (Our command) repeatedly. S. 2:58-59
And remember it was said to them: "DWELL in this town and eat therein as ye wish, but say the word of humility and enter the gate in a posture of humility: We shall forgive you your faults; We shall increase (the portion of) those who do good." But the transgressors among them changed the word from that which had been given them so we sent on them a plague from heaven. For that they repeatedly TRANSGRESSED. S. 7:161-162
Why cant Allah recall whether he told the Israelites to enter or dwell in the town, whether he said to enter the gate prostrating and say "forgive us" or told them to say the word of humility and enter the gate in a posture of humility? Did he tell them to eat OF THE PLENTY therein as they wished, or did he simply say to eat therein as they wished? Cant Allah get his facts straight?
Now note how the late Abdullah Yusuf Ali explained these discrepancies in a footnote:
These verses, 58-59, may be compared to vii. 161-162. There are two verbal differences. Here (ii. 58) we have "enter the town" and in vii. 161 we have "dwell in the town." Again in ii. 59 here we have "infringed (Our command)," and in vii. 162, we have "transgressed." The verbal differences make no difference to the sense. (Ali, The Holy Quran - Translation and Commentary, p. 31, f. 72; bold emphasis ours)
Ali sounds a lot like a Bible believing Christian in trying to explain these verbal variations!
The foregoing shows that the same story in the Quran is retold with major verbal variations as well as contradictions. The problem with having this occurring in the Quran is that Zawadi does not believe that multiple authors wrote it but erroneously assumes that God authored it by dictating it to Muhammad via Gabriel. Yet if God were in fact dictating the Quran to Muhammad we would not expect to find major verbal variations and contradictions in these parallel accounts but expect that God would dictate the same event in exactly the same way. That this is not what we find only proves that the Quran is a false book (the very conclusion that Zawadi seeks to prove via the Gospels variations), Muhammad is a false prophet, and that Allah is a false god.
In light of the foregoing, it is truly amazing that Zawadi would even question the integrity of the Gospels because of their differences while still believing that the Quran is Gods word, even though the same stories are retold with conflicting wording and contradictions throughout. Unless he rejects Islam and turns agnostic or atheist, this will serve to expose his real agenda. If he were really concerned about the accuracy of the Biblical material then he would be equally concerned about the accuracy of the text of the Quran. That he never bothers applying his own criteria against the Quran shows that he will do just about everything to discredit the Gospels, even use a double standard.
We wont be holding our breaths for Zawadi to be honest enough to use his criteria on his own religion since this would force him to reject Muhammad and the Quran altogether, or accept that the Gospels are historically reliable documents despite their verbal variations. Yet to take the latter position is to essentially reject the Quran because it contradicts the Gospels, Gods inspired record of the life and ministry of the risen Lord Jesus, his beloved and eternal Son.
Rebuttals to Answering-Christianity
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page