Refuting Muslim Lies About John 20:28

[DeusVult09]

Hi everybody

Recently I have been reading many Muslim lies about Jesus’ divinity and John 20:28. So I decided to respond to them here disproving their lies by examining the text in the original Koine (common) Greek to ascertain whether their arguments are supported by the text.(Sorry but this post is long and a bit technical)

The verse goes “Thomas answered, him my lord and my god” Then Jesus replies to St Thomas in verse 29. “Because you have seen me you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” This is a clear instance when Jesus is called divine and accepts such praise. It would seem clear but Muslims have attacked this verse using two flawed arguments which I will refute.

1st Muslim Argument:
St Thomas isn’t saying “my god” to Jesus. He is addressing Jesus when he says “my lord” (a title for a man) but “my god” is not addressed to Jesus. When he says” my god” he is addressing god the father/Allah of whom Jesus was merely a prophet, as a human cant be called god.

There is a serious problem with this interpretation which is based entirely within the Islamic agenda and belief that Jesus was a Muslim prophet. Furthermore it does not take into account the Original Greek which completely annihilates this argument.

The verse goes in greek : ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ• ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου. Which taken literally means “answered Thomas and said to him: The lord of me and the God of me.” The masculine dative singular pronoun αὐτῷ clearly indicates Thomas said it “to him” (Jesus). If St THomas was saying my lord to Jesus and my god to Allah as Muslims claim there would be a different plural pronoun, αὐτοῖς meaning “to them” indicating more than one person/being is being spoken to. but as this is not used it is clear St Thomas is calling Jesus God and nobody else in the verse’s context. Secondly the genitive singular pronoun μου which literally means “of me” or “my” indicates possession
so St Thomas is again clearly saying “My god” to Jesus and nobody else, indicating Jesus’ divinity. This is the only possible reading of the verse upon examination of the Greek Grammar.

**2nd Muslim Argument:
“my god” is not a reference to Jesus’ divinity, it is just an exclamation like “ohh my god” used by St Thomas to show his surprise that Jesus is alive after Thomas had doubted his resurrection (even though Muslims don’t believe in the resurrection but that’s another story) **

Now again there is a serious problem with this interpretation. In Greek there is a special case or form of the noun used especially for Exclamations such as “ohh my god” this is called vocative. The vocative form of the Koine greek word for god (θεός) is θεέ. But this is not used in the text so it is impossible that this is an exclamation of any kind. What we find is that the verse uses θεός the masculine nominative singular form of the noun which indicates that god is the subject of the sentence.

If in this verse St Thomas was saying Ohh my god it would say in full “Ωωω Θεέ μου” not what the author used “θεός μου” So it is impossible for this to be an exclamation like “oh my god” as misinformed Muslim apologists like Ahmed Dedat have suggested and can be read as nothing more than a statement of Jesus’ divinity. These weak and hugely flawed Muslim arguments spread nothing but lies and misinformation bout the bible.

 

[Hadi]

I think you are in the wrong forum…we don’t have Muslim scholars here…

but thanks for the efforts

 

[DeusVult09]

well this a common argument used by Muslims against this verse so I posted it here to help Catholics when encountered with this argument. I am not a scholar, I just studied Greek for 6 months and even I can see through such arguments. Even if there were Muslim scholars here it wouldn’t help much as none that I know have actually bothered to study the language before opening their ignorant mouths about the Bible. Sorry to insult your scholars but they says some very ignorant things when it comes to the Bible which totally ignore the principles of Exegesis and Hermeneutics .

 

[Reuben_J]

well this a common argument used by Muslims against this verse so I posted it here to help Catholics when encountered with this argument. I am not a scholar, I just studied Greek for 6 months and even I can see through such arguments. Even if there were Muslim scholars here it wouldn’t help much as none that I know have actually bothered to study the language before opening their ignorant mouths about the Bible. Sorry to insult your scholars but they says some very ignorant things when it comes to the Bible which totally ignore the principles of Exegesis and Hermeneutics .

Personally I can’t be bothered at all when Muslims, whether scholars or those parroting the so-called scholars, trying to interpret the Bible with interpretations that are way too far from the norms as understood by Christians. What they did was actually trying to convince their fellow Muslims that their theology is right and is not contradicted by the Bible.

I am not bothered by Muslims when they do that because they will never in a million years allow non-Muslims to interpret the Quran. So why should they do what they themselves disallow? (interpret the Bible when they are not Christians as they disallow non-Muslims interpret the Quran)).

They can twist one verse but they cannot change the whole Bible story. For that the Quran simply says, “Jesus did not die but appeared to have died”. We know how ridiculous that is.

 

[DeusVult09]

Personally I can’t be bothered at all when Muslims, whether scholars or those parroting the so-called scholars, trying to interpret the Bible with interpretations that are way too far from the norms as understood by Christians. What they did was actually trying to convince their fellow Muslims that their theology is right and is not contradicted by the Bible.

I am not bothered by Muslims when they do that because they will never in a million years allow non-Muslims to interpret the Quran. So why should they do what they themselves disallow? (interpret the Bible when they are not Christians as they disallow non-Muslims interpret the Quran)).

They can twist one verse but they cannot change the whole Bible story. For that the Quran simply says, “Jesus did not die but appeared to have died”. We know how ridiculous that is.

Well I posted this here so hopefully nobody will get sucked into Islam by this blatant lie.

.Im also planning a post on the Muslim Lie that the logos in John chapter 1 isnt jesus but god’s divine will/ wisdom and I will again disprove this argument with the original Greek.

Muslim scholars propagate absurdities and falsehood about the bible which are caused by their perpetual state of ignorance. Ahmed Dedat and Zakir Naik a re too really bad ones at twisting the text to support their views. I only wish they’d bother to study Greek and read the NT in the original language before they open their ignorant mouths and spread such misinformation

 

[elwill]

Hi everybody

Recently I have been reading many Muslim lies about Jesus’ divinity and John 20:28. So I decided to respond to them here disproving their lies by examining the text in the original Koine (common) Greek to ascertain whether their arguments are supported by the text.(Sorry but this post is long and a bit technical)

hi Deus vult , i appereciate your trying to clear any misunderstanding for the bible , and i realy admire your interest to study the language of oldest translations exist for the original lost bible

i have to confess that i know nothing about the greek language , so i have to respect your knowledge which i miss

so please allow me to use what i read about this issue according what the greek bible really say , and i will hear your refuting for them with all respect

1st Muslim Argument:
St Thomas isn’t saying “my god” to Jesus. He is addressing Jesus when he says “my lord” (a title for a man) but “my god” is not addressed to Jesus. When he says” my god” he is addressing god the father/Allah of whom Jesus was merely a prophet, as a human cant be called god.

There is a serious problem with this interpretation which is based entirely within the Islamic agenda and belief that Jesus was a Muslim prophet. Furthermore it does not take into account the Original Greek which completely annihilates this argument.

The verse goes in greek : ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ• ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου. Which taken literally means “answered Thomas and said to him: The lord of me and the God of me.” The masculine dative singular pronoun αὐτῷ clearly indicates Thomas said it “to him” (Jesus). If St THomas was saying my lord to Jesus and my god to Allah as Muslims claim there would be a different plural pronoun, αὐτοῖς meaning “to them” indicating more than one person/being is being spoken to. but as this is not used it is clear St Thomas is calling Jesus God and nobody else in the verse’s context. Secondly the genitive singular pronoun μου which literally means “of me” or “my” indicates possession
so St Thomas is again clearly saying “My god” to Jesus and nobody else, indicating Jesus’ divinity. This is the only possible reading of the verse upon examination of the Greek Grammar.

i completely understand what you trying to say here , but just look at this example in english language to understand my view
let us imagine a father who lost the news about his son during a war for many years , then suddenly he appeared , and when the father saw his son
he shouted to **him ** " my son , my God !, i thought i thought you are dead "

so yes , the third party who records the story says that thomas said to him , exactly as in my story i said that father said to his son
if the pronoun αὐτῷ clearly indicates Thomas said it “to him” (Jesus).

so the using of pronoun αὐτῷ not refute the view of muslims here , with all my respect

2nd Muslim Argument:
“my god” is not a reference to Jesus’ divinity, it is just an exclamation like “ohh my god” used by St Thomas to show his surprise that Jesus is alive after Thomas had doubted his resurrection (even though Muslims don’t believe in the resurrection but that’s another story)

There was never a question of whether or not Jesus was God or resurrected. There was only a question of whether or not he was alive. This is what Thomas doubted, this is what Thomas saw with his own eyes and felt with his hands, and this is what those who did not see Jesus still believed. There is no blessing for those who believe something else (such as that Jesus is God). There is only a blessing for those who believe him to be living.

Now again there is a serious problem with this interpretation. In Greek there is a special case or form of the noun used especially for Exclamations such as “ohh my god” this is called vocative. The vocative form of the Koine greek word for god (θεός) is θεέ. But this is not used in the text so it is impossible that this is an exclamation of any kind. What we find is that the verse uses θεός the masculine nominative singular form of the noun which indicates that god is the subject of the sentence.

If in this verse St Thomas was saying Ohh my god it would say in full “Ωωω Θεέ μου” not what the author used “θεός μου” So it is impossible for this to be an exclamation like “oh my god” as misinformed Muslim apologists like Ahmed Dedat have suggested and can be read as nothing more than a statement of Jesus’ divinity. These weak and hugely flawed Muslim arguments spread nothing but lies and misinformation bout the bible.

i don’t think that the other views are differes with you in what you say , but i will quote for you thier interpretation

“Now the Greek text of the phrase “My Lord and my God!” **uses the nominative form **of both “Lord” and “God.” Since both of these are from the second declension singular, there is in Greek a vocative which is clearly different in form.
Thus, if the words refer to the person addressed, they should be in the vocative. If the words refer to someone other than the person to which they are spoken, they should be in the nominative case. Now in fact they are in the nominative, not the vocative. This suggests that they refer to some other personage than to the one to whom they are addressed. They are addressed to Jesus. So we may know that Jesus at least is not the “Lord” and “God” to whom Thomas refers.”

DeusVult09 , just wanna to say to you that i’m not in the position to say who is right and who is wrong because i don’t know greek
i will just balance the discussion from two side , and i will listnening to your refutation with all respect

catch you later
salam

 

[DeusVult09]

hi Deus vult , i appereciate your trying to clear any misunderstanding for the bible , and i realy admire your interest to study the language of oldest translations exist for the original lost bible

i have to confess that i know nothing about the greek language , so i have to respect your knowledge which i miss

so please allow me to use what i read about this issue according what the greek bible really say , and i will hear your refuting for them with all respect
i completely understand what you trying to say here , but just look at this example in english language to understand my view
let us imagine a father who lost the news about his son during a war for many years , then suddenly he appeared , and when the father saw his son
he shouted to **him ** " my son , my God !, i thought i thought you are dead "

so yes , the third party who records the story says that thomas said to him , exactly as in my story i said that father said to his son
if the pronoun αὐτῷ clearly indicates Thomas said it “to him” (Jesus).

so the using of pronoun αὐτῷ not refute the view of muslims here , with all my respect

this first part of my response was directed at one Muslim argument which suggested that St Thomas said my lord to Jesus and my god as an address to Allah (not necessarily as an exclamation in this argument) My point was that because αὐτῷ was used StSthoma s could only have been talking to Jesus as it’s a singular pronoun and hence St Thomas was not addressing god separately as some muslims have argued Like for example he said my Lord to jesus then looked upwards a bit later and said my god to allah. That is the arguemtn I was refuting.

There was never a question of whether or not Jesus was God or resurrected. There was only a question of whether or not he was alive. This is what Thomas doubted, this is what Thomas saw with his own eyes and felt with his hands, and this is what those who did not see Jesus still believed. There is no blessing for those who believe something else (such as that Jesus is God). There is only a blessing for those who believe him to be living.

i don’t think that the other views are differes with you in what you say , but i will quote for you thier interpretation

“Now the Greek text of the phrase “My Lord and my God!” **uses the nominative form **of both “Lord” and “God.” Since both of these are from the second declension singular, there is in Greek a vocative which is clearly different in form.
Thus, if the words refer to the person addressed, they should be in the vocative. If the words refer to someone other than the person to which they are spoken, they should be in the nominative case. Now in fact they are in the nominative, not the vocative. This suggests that they refer to some other personage than to the one to whom they are addressed. They are addressed to Jesus. So we may know that Jesus at least is not the “Lord” and “God” to whom Thomas refers.”

DeusVult09 , just wanna to say to you that i’m not in the position to say who is right and who is wrong because i don’t know greek
i will just balance the discussion from two side , and i will listnening to your refutation with all respect

haha second declension singular that just means they decline like a masculine noun that has no bearing on anything.

That’s wrong, If this is the exclamation ohh my god it should only be in the vocative indicating it is an expression, it cannot be in the nominative case and be an expression as mentioned before that just indicates it’s the subject. In Greek the only way to say the expression ohh my god is “ Θεέ μου” not what the author used “θεός μου” which is in the nominative case indicating it’s the subject not that it’s an exclamation. Having them both in the nominative case does not indicate that they are addressed to someone else or are an exclamation as I already established Thomas said it to Jesus which is the only possible reading with the pronoun αὐτῷ. There is nothing to indicate that st Thomas is addressing anyone other than Jesus and there is nothing to indicate this is an exclamation in anyway with the absence of Θεέ μου. θεός μου is not an exclamation, it would be like me calling you my god . This is a Muslim attempt to read into the text something which isn’t there as it is clearly not an exclamation in any way and your quote from Thomas McElwain falls short as he cannot prove that this is in nominative for any other reason than because Thomas was calling Jesus god.

There is a nominative for exclamation but it is not used for an expression like ohh my god and if it was used it would be because it was just an expression like im surprised your alive you I can see you really are my god! It would be an overall exclamation indicating surprise at seeing the risen Christ which caused Thomas to remark that Jesus is his god. It is not the same as ohh my god . it still would mean Christ was divine but the nominative of the vocative would indicate Thomas’s surprise. Without “ Θεέ μου” Muslims have no case really. But its impossible for you to prove this is an exclamation because in Greek there are no exclamation marks to back this up.

Furthermore god is supposed to be everywhere how can this be an address to a non –present party? I think this I a nonsensical approach which almost ever NT scholar would laugh at because it twists the texts to mean something which it doesn’t. some might think that its a phrase that was exclamed out of suprise but not that its the expression “ohh my god”

Muslims have no leg to stand on and invent fanciful arguments which completely pervert the text’s meaning. If St Thomas was talking to another party the pronoun αὐτοῖς would be there indicating there is more than one party he was addressing, say jesus and god.

The grammar of the text indicated Muslims are wrong about this verse and so does the context , if this was just an exclamation like oh my god why not use vocative the only way of communicating it? taking a view that its not in vocative because its addressing somebody not there is reading something into the text which isn’t there and is purely laughable.

 

[elwill]

this first part of my response was directed at one Muslim argument which suggested that St Thomas said my lord to Jesus and my god as an address to Allah (not necessarily as an exclamation in this argument) My point was that because αὐτῷ was used StSthoma s could only have been talking to Jesus as it’s a singular pronoun and hence St Thomas was not addressing god separately as some muslims have argued Like for example he said my Lord to jesus then looked upwards a bit later and said my god to allah. That is the arguemtn I was refuting.

agian
let us imagine a father who lost the news about his son during a war for many years , then suddenly he appeared , and when the father saw his son
he shouted to him " my son , my God !, i thought i you are dead "

here , the father said my son to his son and my God as an address to allah
my point was that , although i used the singular pronoun " to him" , it will be understandable that he didn’t mean to divine his son , surely it will be understandable in the context that he refere to allah by saying my lord nd refering to his boy bay saying my son

 

[elwill]

haha second declension singular that just means they decline like a masculine noun that has no bearing on anything.

That’s wrong, If this is the exclamation ohh my god it should only be in the vocative indicating it is an expression, it cannot be in the nominative case and be an expression as mentioned before that just indicates it’s the subject. In Greek the only way to say the expression ohh my god is “ Θεέ μου” not what the author used “θεός μου” which is in the nominative case indicating it’s the subject not that it’s an exclamation. Having them both in the nominative case does not indicate that they are addressed to someone else or are an exclamation as I already established Thomas said it to Jesus which is the only possible reading with the pronoun αὐτῷ. There is nothing to indicate that st Thomas is addressing anyone other than Jesus and there is nothing to indicate this is an exclamation in anyway with the absence of Θεέ μου. θεός μου is not an exclamation, it would be like me calling you my god . This is a Muslim attempt to read into the text something which isn’t there as it is clearly not an exclamation in any way and your quote from Thomas McElwain falls short as he cannot prove that this is in nominative for any other reason than because Thomas was calling Jesus god.

There is a nominative for exclamation but it is not used for an expression like ohh my god and if it was used it would be because it was just an expression like im surprised your alive you I can see you really are my god! It would be an overall exclamation indicating surprise at seeing the risen Christ which caused Thomas to remark that Jesus is his god. It is not the same as ohh my god . it still would mean Christ was divine but the nominative of the vocative would indicate Thomas’s surprise. Without “ Θεέ μου” Muslims have no case really. But its impossible for you to prove this is an exclamation because in Greek there are no exclamation marks to back this up.

Furthermore god is supposed to be everywhere how can this be an address to a non –present party? I think this I a nonsensical approach which almost ever NT scholar would laugh at because it twists the texts to mean something which it doesn’t. some might think that its a phrase that was exclamed out of suprise but not that its the expression “ohh my god”

ok , what about this view

the word translated in this verse as “God” is indeed the Greek “Ho theos” (The God), and not “theos” (divine). However, when studying the history of this verse in the ancient Biblical manuscripts from which our modern Bibles have been compiled we find an interesting fact, specifically, that the ancient Biblical manuscripts themselves are not in agreement as to the correct form of this word. For example, the codex Bezae (or codex D) is a fifth century manuscript containing Greek and Latin texts of the Gospels and Acts, which was discovered in the 16th century by Theodore Beza in a monastery in Lyon. The predecessor of the codex Bezae and other church manuscripts do not contain the article “Ho” (“THE”) in their text (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman, p. 266). What this means is that this verse in it’s original form, if it is to be understood to be addressing Jesus (pbuh) himself, only addresses him as “divine” and not as the “Almighty God.” Thus, it is similar in meaning to the meaning conveyed when prophet Moses is described as being a “god” in Exodus 7:1 (or when all Jews are described as being “gods” in Psalms 82:6, or when the devil is described as god in 2 Corinthians 4:4), effectively reducing the exclamation of Thomas, if it were indeed directed to Jesus, to “My lord the divine!,” or “my divine lord!”

Muslims have no leg to stand on and invent fanciful arguments which completely pervert the text’s meaning. If St Thomas was talking to another party the pronoun αὐτοῖς would be there indicating there is more than one party he was addressing, say jesus and god.

For a Muslim the matter is simple. The Qur’an very explicitly states that Jesus was not forsaken by God to the Jews to be crucified, rather “it was made to appear so to them.” So the claim that Jesus came to Thomas and asked him to witness the imprint of the nail in his hand and the spear in his side is, for a Muslim, clear evidence that this whole episode was a fabrication and later insertion. However, since a Muslim’s claim in this regard would not be regarded as authoritative unbiased proof in this matter, therefore, it is necessary to use a little logic to arrive at the truth.

The grammar of the text indicated Muslims are wrong about this verse and so does the context , if this was just an exclamation like oh my god why not use vocative the only way of communicating it? taking a view that its not in vocative because its addressing somebody not there is reading something into the text which isn’t there and is purely laughable.

by the way , many of the versions of the bible , which surely not written by muslims wrote exclamation mark after the words of thomas

do you want from me to name it for you !
you can’t just blame muslims , you can blame your church and your priest either

 

[Peter29]

For a Muslim the matter is simple. The Qur’an very explicitly states that Jesus was not forsaken by God to the Jews to be crucified, rather “it was made to appear so to them.”.

It’s disgusting to suppose God would deceive us like you say, then damn Christians for being successfully deceived.

by the way , many of the versions of the bible , which surely not written by muslims wrote exclamation mark after the words of thomas

So?

 

[geometer]

The verse goes “Thomas answered, him my lord and my god” Then Jesus replies to St Thomas in verse 29. “Because you have seen me you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” This is a clear instance when Jesus is called divine and accepts such praise. It would seem clear but Muslims have attacked this verse using two flawed arguments which I will refute.

1st Muslim Argument:
St Thomas isn’t saying “my god” to Jesus. He is addressing Jesus when he says “my lord” (a title for a man) but “my god” is not addressed to Jesus. When he says” my god” he is addressing god the father/Allah of whom Jesus was merely a prophet, as a human cant be called god.

There is a serious problem with this interpretation which is based entirely within the Islamic agenda and belief that Jesus was a Muslim prophet. Furthermore it does not take into account the Original Greek which completely annihilates this argument.

The verse goes in greek : ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ• ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου. Which taken literally means “answered Thomas and said to him: The lord of me and the God of me.” The masculine dative singular pronoun αὐτῷ clearly indicates Thomas said it “to him” (Jesus). If St THomas was saying my lord to Jesus and my god to Allah as Muslims claim there would be a different plural pronoun, αὐτοῖς meaning “to them” indicating more than one person/being is being spoken to. but as this is not used it is clear St Thomas is calling Jesus God and nobody else in the verse’s context. Secondly the genitive singular pronoun μου which literally means “of me” or “my” indicates possession
so St Thomas is again clearly saying “My god” to Jesus and nobody else, indicating Jesus’ divinity. This is the only possible reading of the verse upon examination of the Greek Grammar.

Is this the only evidence in the whole bible which suggests that God is a man?

Its not much to go on is it?

 

[Peter29]

Is this the only evidence in the whole bible which suggests that God is a man?

You mean ‘that Jesus was God’. Also no. Where did you get that idea?

 

[DeusVult09]

agian
let us imagine a father who lost the news about his son during a war for many years , then suddenly he appeared , and when the father saw his son
he shouted to him " my son , my God !, i thought i you are dead "

here , the father said my son to his son and my God as an address to allah
my point was that , although i used the singular pronoun " to him" , it will be understandable that he didn’t mean to divine his son , surely it will be understandable in the context that he refere to allah by saying my lord nd refering to his boy bay saying my son

My point was is even if this was a normative exclamation it it still doesn’t make St Thomas say “ohh my god” to jesus, it would like Thomas exclaiming the whole thing not as an expression like ohh my god like “my lord and my god!” still claiming Jesus’ divinity but indicating surprise to see he is alive. Normative exclamations are not indicated in the text and are just something that scholars interpret. It is imposible for Thomas to be saying ohh my god

 

[DeusVult09]

ok , what about this view

the word translated in this verse as “God” is indeed the Greek “Ho theos” (The God), and not “theos” (divine). However, when studying the history of this verse in the ancient Biblical manuscripts from which our modern Bibles have been compiled we find an interesting fact, specifically, that the ancient Biblical manuscripts themselves are not in agreement as to the correct form of this word. For example, the codex Bezae (or codex D) is a fifth century manuscript containing Greek and Latin texts of the Gospels and Acts, which was discovered in the 16th century by Theodore Beza in a monastery in Lyon. The predecessor of the codex Bezae and other church manuscripts do not contain the article “Ho” (“THE”) in their text (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman, p. 266). What this means is that this verse in it’s original form, if it is to be understood to be addressing Jesus (pbuh) himself, only addresses him as “divine” and not as the “Almighty God.” Thus, it is similar in meaning to the meaning conveyed when prophet Moses is described as being a “god” in Exodus 7:1 (or when all Jews are described as being “gods” in Psalms 82:6, or when the devil is described as god in 2 Corinthians 4:4), effectively reducing the exclamation of Thomas, if it were indeed directed to Jesus, to “My lord the divine!,” or “my divine lord!”

For a Muslim the matter is simple. The Qur’an very explicitly states that Jesus was not forsaken by God to the Jews to be crucified, rather “it was made to appear so to them.” So the claim that Jesus came to Thomas and asked him to witness the imprint of the nail in his hand and the spear in his side is, for a Muslim, clear evidence that this whole episode was a fabrication and later insertion. However, since a Muslim’s claim in this regard would not be regarded as authoritative unbiased proof in this matter, therefore, it is necessary to use a little logic to arrive at the truth.

by the way , many of the versions of the bible , which surely not written by muslims wrote exclamation mark after the words of thomas

do you want from me to name it for you !
you can’t just blame muslims , you can blame your church and your priest either

Hahah more grasping at straws, Theos could be translated as divine one/ god . St Thomas is still claiming that Jesus is divine in Greek either way because he saw him die and saw him raised from the dead. There is nothing to indicate this is the expression “ohh my god”.

It is directed at Jesus because the pronoun αὐτῷ indicates its to him and nobody else. If it was to more than one person even if that person wasn’t named it would not use this pronoun but αὐτοῖς meaning to them. Your quote from a guy saying if it was directed at somebody who wasn’t there it would be in the nominative case is ridiculous as god is supposed to be everywhere and it does not conform to the correct grammatical way of saying “ohh my god” in the vocative form. Furthermore when you say ohh my god it is not addressed to anyone but is an expression used to show surprise so either way this argument does not work and is laughable.

The Koran says that Jesus wasn’t crucified because it was influenced by various Gnostic gospels which say that Jesus had a twin who died for him, so he just appeared to die.

I have a post not about the Gnostic influences on Islam but about the influence of main stream Christianity upon Islam. Perhaps you’d like to read it forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=361136

There are versions of the bible that have an exclamation mark based on the translators idea that St Thomas was supprised, it is not based on the text itself and not based upon the belief that this is the expression “ohh my god”. As one of my catholic bretheren stated the exclamation mark wasn’t included till the 1500’s and there is no exclamation mark in koine greek so this is a completely unsubstantiated argument.

just becuae it conflicts with your koran its clear evidence its a fabrication? that is such a logcal falalcy i dont know where to begin but i could say the entire koran is a fabrication because it disagreesw ith bible in many respects but that is not proof.

I find it far more likely the Bible’s version of events happened rather than the Koran’s which was written 600 years after the fact. And if you read my other post I prove that almost everything about Jesus in the Koran is plagiarized from apocryphal gospels

 

[DeusVult09]

you can look at the earliest bible manuscript in existence, codex Sinaticus which I think is from the 3rd or 4th centuries AD and even it has the definite article ὁ (the)indicating it is “the god” Furthermore if this was an exclamation
like ohh my god, im pretty sure that definite article should not be there.
that definite article may be lacking in some manuscripts but it is in many other ones. For this reason and for the others I have already stated this Muslim argument falls. Even without the definite article it still means Jesus is divine and does not posses the correct grammatical form to be the exclamation “oh my god” like ahmed dedat and other self proclaimed moronic Muslim biblical "scholars have proclaimed

If you want to see what codex sinaticus uses you can see it online here codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=36&chapter=20&lid=en&side=r&verse=28&zoomSlider=0#36-20-24-18

Sinaticus says
ο κϲ μου και ο θϲ μου so the definite article is clearly present.

Note:
κϲ is the abbreviation for the the word κύριός and θϲ the abbreviation for θεός

 

[ZAKI]

If water’s purity is corrupted by mud then there will still be water contained in the new mixture.
This famous saying was made by ZAKI.

wasalam

 

[ZAKI]

Assalam,

whaddaya mean?

wasalam

 

[ZAKI]

what i mean is-is that as a whole it is undrinkable but there is still pure drinking water there and if u want you can distill that water and use it (drink it)
get it???

wasalam

 

[JamesRottnek]

I would just like to say that you will not win any Muslim converts to the Church by telling Muslims that their spiritual leaders are lying to them. Furthermore, Muslims who interpret the Bible the way you are saying they do are NOT lying. To lie, you have to be intentionally deceiving someone. Therefore, those that believe this are NOT lying by saying so. To say they are would be like saying that Protestants who claim that there is no Biblical support for the Pope are lying, they are simply wrong. There is a very big difference.

Also, this whole question is really not that important as (from what I understand) Muslims don’t believe the Bible we have is the original one, they believe that ours is incredibly different.

 

[DeusVult09]

Yes that is a huge logical fallacy, how can they use the bible to support Islam if its corrupted. They say its corrupted because it talks about Jesus’ divnity
then say it doesn’t mention his divinity anywhere so itsnot corrupted and utterly twist verses indicating otherwise. Furthermore they take this fallacy to another level by claiming that there are prophecies of Mohammad in the bible ( they are all pretty laughable, almost as laughable who as the evangelicals who think Apache attack helicopters and communist china are prophercied in the book of revelation lol)

Muslims cant have it both ways, either its corrupted or it isn’t . if its corrupted please don’t use it to support your religion as its such a weak argument and so flawed.