REFUTATION TO SAAMI ZAATARI'S ARTICLE TITLED: EVOLUTION OF JESUS PART 1

Sammi Zaatari made an Article on his Website the Evolution of Jesus and alleged supposed evolution in the Gospel regarding Jesus. What Saami Zaatari has to understand is that Mark,Matthew,Luke and John wrote to different people at a different time and different place. What we have to first take into account is the authors purpose when they wrote about Jesus. All four authors painted different pictures or roles of Jesus's life that he came to fulfill

Saami assumes Jesus came to fulfill just one role, when in fact he came to fulfill many different roles. Jesus wasn't just a prophet as Muslims claim but he was King, Priest,the Son of God etc.......

And this is what Saami needs to understand.

For instance Mark's Gospel Portray's the suffering Servant role of Jesus and that's why we get a Different Picture of Jesus.

Matthews Gospel portrays a Messiah/King Jesus.

Luke's Gospel Portrays a Son of Man Jesus.

And Johns Gospel portrays a Son of God Jesus.

And that's why we get different roles of Jesus in the Gospels, however there is no doubt it is the same Jesus as all four Gospels perfectly agree with one another.

I will Respond to Saami's Article and I will post his arguments step by step and respond accordingly to make it easier for you guys to follow. I will Break down My Refutation into Parts or Sections. And the Section That I highlight RED  from Saami's Article,will be the section I'll be refuting.

AND ONCE AGAIN SAAMI CONDEMNS HIS PROPHET

Here is his Article:

The Evolution on the character of Jesus in the New Testament Gospels

 By Sami Zaatari

  

As we read the first 4 Gospels of the NT, it becomes apparently clear that character of Jesus keeps on changing from one Gospel to another. Bassam Zawadi has already written one article on this issue which can be located here:

http://answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/evolutionofthedeityofchrist.htm

In this article I will simply show some more verses from the NT showing this evolution taking place on the character of Jesus.

To begin with, let us first give the order in which the Gospels were written:

Mark

Matthew

Luke

John

The Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel to be written, and as we read on the later Gospels, we find that the other authors are modifying the story and trying to make Jesus look different, something more than he is.   

So let us now go and see these modifications:

The Baptism of Jesus:

Mark 1:9-13

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness. 13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.Let us now read how Matthew modified the story:

Matthew 3:13-17

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Note the difference between the two accounts. In the earlier account of Mark, Jesus simply comes to get baptized and does it. In Matthew's version we see Jesus coming to get baptized only this time John protests against it, because he thinks that Jesus does not need to be baptized, and that Jesus does not need to be baptized by John but it is John who needs to be baptized by Jesus.

This is an obvious modification to the story, Matthew modified the story to simply make it look better, and to make Jesus look better.

The one to come after John

In each Gospel account we first see the apostle John speaking about Jesus, the one to come after him, but when we read each account, each one is different and each one is changing to make Jesus look more special.  

Mark 1:5-8

5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. 6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; 7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. 8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Let us now read what John's Gospel says:

John 1:15-35

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. 22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophetEsaias. 24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? 26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; 27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. 28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me,Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; 36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
Note the major differences in both accounts now. The Gospel of John which is the last Gospel to have been written adds many more things. It calls Jesus a lamb of God, the man to take the sin of the world, that he was preferred before John etc. In Mark all we see is that John says a man will come after than him, who is mightier and greater than himself.

Jesus' death on the cross

Mark 15:33-41

33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lamasabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias. 36 And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down. 37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. 38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. 39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; 41 (Who also, when he was inGalilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.
So basically Jesus dies, cries out to God, and the people who watched said truly he is the son of God. Let us now read Matthew's version:

Matthew 27:45-56

45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? thatis to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. 48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. 49 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. 54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying,Truly this was the Son of God. 55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

 

Note the major difference. Now in Matthew's version we see that after Jesus dies a major earthquake happens, and that the saints rise from the dead and start walking throughJerusalem!!!!! This is an obvious evolution in the text, once again Matthew is trying to make things seem better and more special, and try to make an impact on his reader.  

The criminals beside Jesus on the Cross

When we read the crucifixion story, we read that there were two other men to be crucified along Jesus as well, they were crooks and were being punished for their crimes. However this is one of the best examples of how this simple fact was modified into something very special and lovely.

Mark 15:25-32

25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. 26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. 28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. 29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, 30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross. 31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Matthew 27:33-44

33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, 34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. 35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. 36 And sitting down they watched him there; 37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. 39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, 40 And saying, Thou thatdestroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. 41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. 44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth

So basically Mark and Matthew are in basic agreement. We do not see anything special happening with the thieves who were to also be crucified, in fact Matthew shows that they too also disbelieved In Jesus.

However let us now read Luke's version:

Luke 23:32-43

32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death. 33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. 35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. 36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, 37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself. 38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shaltthou be with me in paradise.

So now in Luke's version we see that one of the criminals began to believe in Jesus and that he asked Jesus to remember him when he got to heaven, something Jesus said he would do. Wow if that's not an evolution in the text then I don't know what is.

Luke obviously modified the story from the two earlier accounts of Mark and Matthew, and wanted to make it seem as a great lovely moment to bring tears to the eyes of the reader who believed this.

The lady who touched Jesus

Mark 5:28-34

28 For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. 29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. 30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes? 31 And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me? 32 And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing. 33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. 34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

Matthew slightly modified this story which becomes obvious:

Matthew 9:20-22

20 And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment: 21 For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. 22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole.

Notice the difference between both accounts. In Matthews's version he leaves the part about Jesus asking who touched him out. Matthew seems to have a problem with Jesus asking the people who had touched him; it obviously doesn't look good for Matthew and later scribes who would want to make Jesus look divine. So Matthew or some scribe purposely left it out.

Let us Begin:

Here is the First section of Saami's Article and he says" As we read the first 4 Gospels of the NT, it becomes apparently clear that character of Jesus keeps on changing from one Gospel to another. Bassam Zawadi has already written one article on this issue which can be located here:

http://answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/evolutionofthedeityofchrist.htm

In this article I will simply show some more verses from the NT showing this evolution taking place on the character of Jesus.

To begin with, let us first give the order in which the Gospels were written:

Mark

Matthew

Luke

John

The Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel to be written, and as we read on the later Gospels, we find that the other authors are modifying the story and trying to make Jesus look different, something more than he is.   

He starts off again saying that the Character of Jesus IS supposedly changing through out the Gospels, when number one, The authors are writing different roles of Jesus's life that he came to fulfill  Saami once again assumes Jesus came to fill one role which is strictly FALSE. Mark wrote about the suffering Jesus,Matthew wrote about the Messiah Jesus, Luke wrote about the Son of Man Jesus and John wrote about the Son of God Jesus. And Jesus fulfilled all these roles and titles. That's why we get different pictures in the Gospel.

NO PROBLEM HERE WHATSOEVER

He then refers everyone to Bassam's Article on the same Subject namely the evolution of Jesus and thinks this some how proves his point. When number one Bassam's arguments are pathetic and I have refuted some of them in my Past Articles and number two the answering Islam team has refuted his arguments as well as Textual Scholars.

So what's Saami's Point?

He then makes the claim that he will show us how the Gospels have changed and upgrade the status of Jesus in the same events. He proceeds to list in order when the Gospels were written with Mark being the First,Matthew the second,Luke the third and Finally John.

To answer this question is YES the majority of Scholars take Mark's Gospel to be written First. However there are others who disagree that Mark was actually the First Gospel. So it's all mere conjecture and guesses as far as dating goes, however it is a Majority ruling from the scholars.

Let's go on, here's Saami next section of his Article and he says "The Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel to be written, and as we read on the later Gospels, we find that the other authors are modifying the story and trying to make Jesus look different, something more than he is.   

So let us now go and see these modifications:

The Baptism of Jesus:

Mark 1:9-13

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness. 13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.Let us now read how Matthew modified the story:

Matthew 3:13-17

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Note the difference between the two accounts. In the earlier account of Mark, Jesus simply comes to get baptized and does it. In Matthew's version we see Jesus coming to get baptized only this time John protests against it, because he thinks that Jesus does not need to be baptized, and that Jesus does not need to be baptized by John but it is John who needs to be baptized by Jesus.

This is an obvious modification to the story, Matthew modified the story to simply make it look better, and to make Jesus look better.

So he again jumps right into how the Gospel Writers try to supposedly improve the character of Jesus when Number one they are writing different portraits or roles of Jesus's life. And that needs to be taken into account First.

He then proposes the supposed Modification and quotes  Mark 1:9-13 about the Baptism of Jesus, He then contrast this with Matthew 3:13-17 and explains the supposed evolution From Mark's Gospel to Matthew's Gospel.

I will post both verses:

Mark 1:9-13 9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness. 13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

And Matthew 3:13-17 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Saami then makes the supposed evolution In Matthew's Gospel about Jesus's Baptism and says that In Marks Gospel  Jesus just get;s Baptized however in Matthew's Gospel Jesus comes to Get Baptized and John protest against it and suggest Jesus Baptize Him.

To answer this Question is EASY Saami needs to read the Context.

Because when we read Mark's Version you can see Mark just summarizes the Baptism of Jesus, Mark get's right to the point of how Jesus come's to Jordan and Get's Baptized by John, while Matthew explains the event in further detail mentioning John conversation with Jesus.

And Note: After John protest with Jesus-Jesus was then Baptized  and then we see the Dove descending and the Father testifying of Jesus. Same goes for Mark's Gospel After Mark mentions the Baptism of Jesus, the Dove descends and the Father testify s of Jesus.

IT IS THE SAME EVENT!!!!!!!!

Mark does not include the conversation John had with Jesus, he get's right to the point and just says that Jesus was Baptized which perfectly agrees with Matthews Gospel.

Let Put Both Stories together

Matthew 3:13-16 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, 

So Jesus comes from Galilee to Jordan to be Baptized by John. However John forbids him to allow him to be baptized and then Jesus responds to him and then John Baptizes Him.

Now let's read Marks version

Mark 1:9 9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

So Jesus comes from Galilee which perfectly agrees with Matthew's Gospel and is Baptized by him in Jordan which perfectly agrees with Matthew's gospel again. The only difference here is that Mark doesn't mention this event in Detail he just summarizes it, Saami assumes that just because Mark doesn't mention every detail in Matthew's Gospel then somehow this is False, which is ridiculous as News Papers do this all the time. Mark is telescoping the Baptism of Jesus. The proof is on Saami to show that Mark denied that John and Jesus spoke, which he obviously can't.

SO HOW IS THIS AN EVOLUTION???

I will continue My refutation to Saami's Article.

Stay tuned for Part 2


God Bless You All 

COMMENT ON SAAMI ZAATARI AND VENOMFANGX DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!

Saami Zaatari Recently had a Debate with a Jewish Christian aka Venomfangx. This Debate was split into 4 parts about the Deity of Christ. Saami Zaatri with the honest truth got Destroyed in this Debate, he did not address many of the points that Venomfang raised, instead he ran like a coward- like he is doing  with me. In case you guys haven't noticed I have sent my responses to Saami Zaatari and his Partner Bassaam Zawadi and none of them have responded. Now going back to the Debate Saami Brought up a point where Jesus can't be sinless because he did not cast the stone.

Number 1 Saami Zaatari by making this ridiculous and desperate attempt on Jesus already condemns his False Prophet because according to the Koran Jesus was sinless. I couldn't stop Laughing  in the Debate because Saami ended up refuting his own Religion. And Secondly Jesus's whole point in that Passage was that everyone deserved to be stoned because we are all bondage of Sin. HOWEVER JESUS IS NOT and he came to save us not condemn us. If Jesus were to throw the stone he would completely contradict and oppose everything HE CAME TO DO WHICH WAS TO SAVE HUMANITY. For Saami to allege supposed sin against Jesus, is quite honestly desperate and Pathetic. And even if I gave Saami the benefit of the doubt He still condemns his Prophet because according to the Koran Jesus was sinless unlike Muhammad who literally broke virtually every command you can think of.

Saami Knows there's no comparison between Jesus and Muhammad and that's why he used desperate attempts to allege supposed sin on Jesus when he know's he can't. He knows Muhammad's fruits are DIRTY and that's why he attacks Jesus even tho his Koran tells him to follow Jesus. This is just an attempt to try and justify Muhammad's filthy and disgusting Life.

MUSLIMS HAVE NOTHING ON JESUS BUT WE CHRISTIANS HAVE EVERYTHING ON MUHAMMAD

And For the Record Saami Got destroyed in this Debate and should reconsider embracing Jesus Christ were he will prevail and not falter such as in this Debate.

PAUL WILLIAMS CONDEMNS MUHAMMAD AGAIN!!!!!!!!!

Paul Williams recently made an Article Titled Is Idolatry Unavoidable built- in to Christians Worship, bloggingtheology.wordpress.com. And for the millionth time Paul Williams condemns his Prophet and Islam.

Let Me break down points because I don't think Paul Williams seems to understand his Inconsistency.

Point Number 1: Islam Confirms the Bible as the Word of God
Point Number 2: And therefore Paul Williams should not question or attack the Bible
Point Number 3: However since Paul Williams attacks the Bible he condemns his Prophet
Point Number 4: Therefore Islam must be False


And this is what I can't understand about Paul Williams, may God open his eyes SERIOUSLY!!!!!

Here is his Article: 

Is idolatry unavoidably built-in to Christian worship?

When I was a Christian I routinely worshiped Jesus as god. I would picture him in my mind’s eye receiving my praise and worship.

But these days I see a number of serious problems with this behaviour. Even on a Christian understanding Jesus was completely human, like us in every way apart from sin.

So are all Christians worshipers of Jesus human and divine? If they do not differentiate in their worship between Jesus as God and Jesus as man, then the sin of idolatry is being committed.

Paul said in Romans 1,

because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

this might be rephrased,

because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature AND the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

But I fear that idolatry – one of the most serious sins in all of Scripture – is built-in to Christian worship, for the simple reason that worship and divine honour is rendered to Jesus as a human being, a creature of the Creator, without any attempt to focus on God alone.

Thoughts?

He starts off by saying that when he was supposedly a Christians he supposedly worshiped Jesus as God and that he pictured in his Mind Jesus receiving Praise.

To answer this question, number 1 it's irrelevant what Paul pictures in his Mind because Jesus doesn't need Paul or his understanding to be sovereign and be Worshiped. It sounds like Paul thinks Jesus's Divinity is Binding on whatever he thinks which is absolutely ridiculous.

He then says that there are a number of supposed Problems because Jesus was a Human just like you and Me, however he was sinless.

And my answer to this question is YES Jesus was sinless and was a True Human Being, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THAT. So it's Wrong for God to come down to Earth as human to save his Creation from their Sins????

He then makes the claim that refute Islam and his False Prophet ( I'll get to that in a Minute) he asks a question whether Christians Worship Jesus the Man or the Divine.

To Answer this simple question is Christians Worship GOD who became a Man, If God himself becomes a Man he still deserves the right and privilege to be WORSHIPED BECAUSE HE IS THE CREATOR. Christians do not commit Idolatry because the Man that is worshiped is God in Human Flesh. However Paul has to be consistent because According to the Koran Allah has no Partners and Yet when Paul Williams recited the Shahada he Joined Muhammad a HUMAN to the same Level as Allah. So to turn the tables on Paul Williams do Muslims worship Muhammad when they invoke his Name in the Shahada? How can Muhammad a Mere human being with NO POWER save Muslims from HELL FIRE???? And how can Allah be ONE GOD when he himself NEEDS HUMANS TO HELP HIM SAVE HIS FOLLOWERS HOW PATHETIC IS THIS RELIGION THAT PAUL BELIEVES IN?? AND SOMEHOW CHRISTIANS COMMIT IDOLATRY. And it get's even worse why do Muslims bow down to the Kaaba and Kiss the Black stone when these Materials are MAN MADE where God himself is Not Present, what Benefit is there in doing such an act, Islam is clearly Polytheistic and Blasphemous, so much for Islamic supposed Monotheism.

He then Quotes Paul and gives the passage of Romans 1, and what's ironic is that Paul Williams quotes a Verse when in the very same Letter Paul says Jesus is Lord and that he Died on the Cross and rose from the Dead which once again proves Muhammad is a False Prophet.

Secondly Jesus is not a MERE Creature He is GOD who became a Creature however he is still God and that's what Paul Needs to get through his Hard Head. We Worship the God-man meaning we worship the Creator who becomes human however he IS still the Creator GOD, what makes us Worship Jesus is his divinity not his Humanity.

Paul is talking about MERE HUMANS AND GOD, HOWEVER JESUS IS NOT A MERE HUMAN BEING IS HE? AND SECONDLY PAUL IN THE VERY CONTEXT OF ROMANS SAYS JESUS IS LORD, SO HE ACTUALLY DISAGREES WITH PAUL WILLIAMS. BECAUSE IF PAUL REALLY MEANT WHAT HE SAID IN ROMANS 1 ACCORDING TO PAUL WILLIAMS LOGIC THEN WHY DOES HE CALL JESUS LORD AND GOD. WHY DOES HE SAY IN COLOSSIANS AND GALATIANS THAT JESUS CREATED EVERYTHING AND THAT HE'S GOD ALMIGHTY IF PAUL WILLIAMS POINT IS TRUE??

He then says he fears that Idolatry is the most serious sin in Scripture which I perfectly agree with. However Paul Williams is Playing Games because if he really supposedly fears Idolatry then why does he need Muhammad to save him from his sins when he himself is a Human being that Needs saving. Why does Paul Williams need to recite Muhammad in the Shahada when Number 1 Only God can save because he has the Power to do so and 2 Allah has NO Partners  OF ANY KIND according to the Koran and yet Muhammad is an EQUAL partner in the supposed salvation of the Muslims.

THIS IS PURE IDOLATRY

So to sum up Christians Worship GOD who became Man, so he deserves the right to be worshiped because he's still God. However Muslims commit Idolatry because 1 Allah has no Partners OF ANY KIND according to the Koran ,However Muslims join Muhammad as an Equal Partner to supposedly save them when they recite the Shahada. So according to Paul Williams own Religion alone he already condemns his Prophet and therefore Islam is False. Also since Muhammad is a MERE HUMAN BEING THAT HAS NO POWER TO SAVE, Paul Williams condemns his Prophet again because MERE Human beings have no power to save people from their sins, however Muslims join Muhammad to supposedly save them so they commit Idolatry and Blasphemy. And Finally Paul Williams condemns Muhammad again and again because according to the Koran the Bible is the Word of God, however since Paul attacked the Bible he once again and again proves Islam a Fraud.

Thanks Paul Williams for refuting yourself over and over and again

God Bless you All

A Response By Dr. Daniel B. Wallace to Ibn Anwar's Article Titled: Human Error or Divine Incompotence?

Ibn Anwar a Friend of Mr Saami Zaatari makes many Articles on Saami's Website : http://muslim-responses.com. Specifically in this Article he makes claims that Mark made an error in Mark 1:2 because he says "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way;" (Mark 1:2). However since Isaiah never said these words then the Bible is supposedly wrong.

Anwar automatically condemns his False Prophet because it testifies to the Authority of the Bible and this is what I don't understand about Muslim Apologist, they just don't seem to care to be consistent and refute their own religion.

So from the Start of Anwars Article he already condemned and refuted his beliefs.

I will post a Beautiful Response By a fellow Brother Dr Daniel B. Wallace, a New Testament Textual Scholar who refutes Anwars Pathetic claims. The Article is Titled: Mark 1:2 and Textual Criticism.

Here it is and Be Blessed as you read and Learn from this:

Mark 1:2 and
New Testament Textual Criticism

by
Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament Studies
Dallas Theological Seminary
wallace@bible.org

In the second verse of Mark’s Gospel, most modern translations read something like “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way.” The KJV on the other hand has “As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." The key difference (once you get past the thees and thous) is the source of the quotation. Modern translations present this as coming from Isaiah, while the KJV presents the quotation as coming from “the prophets.” The problem is that the quotation is initially from Malachi (3:1). Mark 1:3 then goes on to quote from Isaiah. Why, then, have the modern translations rendered the quotation as coming only from Isaiah?
The reason, quite simply, is that the earliest and best witnesses have such wording. New Testament scholars who work on determining the wording of the original Greek New Testament are functioning at the level of the deepest integrity when they argue that the original read “in Isaiah the prophet.” This is because they are arguing for wording that seems to communicate a mistake. They argue this in spite of their own feelings about the biblical author’s accuracy.¹ Their basis for this view is that a number of important and early manuscripts have the reading “in Isaiah the prophet” rather than “in the prophets.” The witnesses that have “in the prophets” are A, E, F, G, H, P, W, S, family 13, the majority of minuscules, the bulk of lectionaries, one Vulgate MS, Syriac Harclean (6th century Byzantine version), a few scattered Bohairic MSS, Ethiopic, Slavic, Ireneaus (Latin translation), and Asterius. Except for Ireneaus (second century), the earliest evidence for this is thus from the late fourth century (W and Asterius). The difficulty of Ireneaus is that he wrote in Greek but has been preserved largely in Latin. His Greek remains have “in Isaiah the prophet.” Only the later Latin translation has “in the prophets.” The KJV reading is thus in harmony with the majority of late manuscripts (MSS).
On the other hand, the witnesses for “in Isaiah the prophet” (either with the article before Isaiah or not) are early and geographically widespread: Aleph, B, L, D, Q, family 1, 33, 205, 565, 700, 892, 1071, 1241, 1243, 2427, Itala MSS (such as a, aur, b, c, d, f , ff², l, q, Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Syriac Palestinian, Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, Irenaeus (Greek), Origen, Serapion, Epiphanius, Severian, Cyril-Jerusalem, Hesychius, Victorinus-Pettau, Chromatius, Ambrosiaster, Jerome (who has a variant of this reading, but NOT “in the prophets”), Augustine, etc. This evidence runs deep into the second century, is widespread, and is found in the most important Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean witnesses.
On the whole, we would have to say that the “Isaiah” reading has a better external pedigree in every way. It has the support of the earliest and best witnesses from all the texttypes that matter. It is widespread throughout the Mediterranean world, and from a very early period.
Hence, this leaves us with an interesting question: If this reading is not original, where did it come from? Scribes surely knew that the first part of the quotation was from Malachi--after all, not a few of these same scribes had copied out the OT. They knew their Scriptures well. Hence, an accidental change to “Isaiah” by some well-meaning early scribe is rather unlikely.²
Further, there is virtually no possibility that a scribe could have accidentally written Isaiah by dittography. This is the beginning of the gospel; there is not only no Isaiah (Hsaia) in the preceding material, there is also no Hs in the preceding material except in Jesus’ name, but that would have been written as a nomen sacrum (IU) from early on.
This leaves one possibility left: conspiracy. Indeed, this is the charge that John Burgon makes of these early MSS. But if there is such a conspiracy, then three problems remain that are difficult, if not impossible, to explain: (1) How in the world could such a conspiracy have infected so many early and diverse witnesses? Its roots must go back so early that we would have to doubt virtually any reading in the NT. This would mean that the very first copies--and therefore often the majority of MSS (according to majority text theory) got corrupted. Thus, the conspiracy theory proves too much. That’s even too much for Burgon! (2) If there was a conspiracy, then these conspirators were singularly inept, for they blew most of their chances to corrupt the NT. Further, it is demonstrable that virtually every MS (and certainly the major ‘conspirators’ such as Aleph, B, and D) harmonizes Gospel passages from time to time, even against the majority of MSS. Such harmonizations are cross-purposed with conspiracy and intentional corruption. (3) In order for there to be a conspiracy, there must of course be some sort of collusion. If so, why then do these early MSS disagree so much? That is, they are not nearly as uniform as the later Byzantine MSS. One simply cannot have his cake and eat it, too: if you hold to conspiracy, you must also affirm some measure of uniformity. The majority text advocates strongly speak against the disunity of the early MSS, while at the same time arguing just as strongly they they (at least the Alexandrian MSS) come from a singular recension. But if that is the case, why then the fracturing? You can’t have it both ways.
If “in Isaiah the prophet” is neither an accident nor an intentional change, do we dare call it original? All the evidence points in that direction. This leaves two questions: How do we then explain “in the prophets”? And what impact does this make on inerrancy? The explanation is that “in the prophets” is obviously a secondary reading, motivated by perhaps several pious scribes who thought “Isaiah” was a contradiction. Hence, they changed it to “the prophets.” This smells very much like a predictable variant that could have occurred in several regions without any kind of collusion or genetic connection. At the same time, if Ireneaus’s Latin translation is informed by later witnesses, then it is possible that this reading originated as a Byzantine reading. It is noteworthy that Asterius reads “in the prophets.” He was Lucian’s student and was the first church father to use the Byzantine text form, as far as we can tell. (Lucian was proposed by Hort as the father of the Byzantine text. This proposal, incidentally, was by no means necessary to Hort’s theory, but was a decent hunch that may well be correct.) Thus, “in the prophets” either arose in more than one region by pious scribes or was initiated by the Byzantine archetype which, in turn, infected the majority of subsequent Greek witnesses. Either way, the reading is easily explained as a “correction” to Mark’s wording.
Now, how does all this relate to the issue of inerrancy? Three answers need to be given. First, the evidence is overwhelming that Mark wrote “in Isaiah the prophet.” Whatever one’s beliefs about inerrancy, it seems to me, they have to adjust to this piece of evidence.
Second, when it comes to dealing with textual criticism, if we want to take an approach to the text that says, “Start with the presupposition of inerrancy,” then we should logically be forced into holding to conjectural emendation in some places (such as Luke 2:2). This is so because there are several more severe problems to inerrancy than Mark 1:2. But if that is our approach, shouldn’t we also emend the text any time it disagrees with our theology on other fronts? There are passages that seem to indicate that Jesus was less than true deity. Don’t we have the right to change them to fit our doctrinal convictions? There is no stopping this kind of dogmatic method once it has begun. In the end, all one believes is what he wants to believe. And his Bible is of the same kind as Thomas Jefferson’s (who cut out passages that offended him, principally texts that affirmed that miraculous). This is not honoring to the God of the Bible who works in history. Theology must never be divorced from history; when it is, Christianity is no better than any other religion.
Third, we simply need to be honest with the evidence in front of us. It is acceptable to say, at times, “I don’t know.” Inerrancy does not live or die with Mark 1:2. There are many fine exegetes who adopt the “Isaiah” reading and yet affirm inerrancy (in fact, I would venture to say that most inerrantist scholars adopt this reading). Nevertheless, they have options as to what is going on. They may not have the answer, but to simply call “in Isaiah” a mistake is quite arrogant. Some suggest that Isaiah headed up the scroll of the prophets and hence Mark meant “In the scroll of Isaiah.” This may be, but we are lacking sufficient proof. There are other suggestions as well, though no firm answers. Like any other doctrine, we base our belief on what we think Scripture teaches and place the difficult passages in the ambiguous category. This is because the doctrine is based on clear passages that seem to be overwhelming to us. There are times that we simply say, “I don’t know what this means, but I know what it doesn’t mean.” Why should Mark 1:2 be any different? At the same time, the closer we look at the Scriptures, the more we are delighted by the subtleties of truth woven into them. We should never be afraid to look more closely at Mark 1:2--or at any other difficult passage. But we should be afraid of our own arrogance--an arrogance often borne of fear and ignorance, not evidence.

1 By saying this, we are not arguing that the majority of textual critics embrace inerrancy. However, the vast majority do have sufficient respect for a biblical author that they will not impute to him an ostensible inaccuracy unless the manuscript testimony compels them to do so. At all points, textual critics are historians who have to base their views on data, not mere theological convictions. The rule that almost all textual critics follow is: Choose the reading that best explains the rise of the others. This means looking at the external and internal evidence in an effort to trace out both history and psychology.

Further, conjectural emendation is generally anathema to textual critics, even though they sometimes resort to it to solve difficulties in the text. In the least, this shows that textual critics as a group are in no way trying to destroy the Bible’s credibility.

2 To be sure, there is some evidence that an occasional later scribe made this error. But to argue that an early scribe did so and that his error infected many MSS for generations in several widespread regions is beyond credibility.