| Audio Books |Buy Books |Download |Free Books |Donate | Volunteer | Learn Islam


  • Biblical Illness: What did Jesus call God while allegedly on the cross?  “My Father” (Matthew 26:39)  Vs  “Abba” (Mark 14:36)

Excuse; Mistranslation.

Rebuttal:  Jesus’ Original Language is Aramaic, Thus Pagan Greek Translations Are Invalid. The Quran Has Been Kept Pure in the Semitic Language of  Arabic that is Like Aramaic for 1,400 Years, Why Drink Sick Polluted Water When You Can Drink Pure Water?


  • Biblical Illness: There is a riddle regarding the last words before the reputed crucifixion.  Did Jesus indeed pray to God to prevent the excruciation?

“And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.”  (Matthew 26:39)

Here we see Jesus was praying to be saved;

“And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt.”  (Mark 14:36)

“Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”  (Luke 22:42)

The major problem lies in John’s testimony;

“Now is my soul troubled.  And what shall I say?  ‘Father, save me from this hour’?  No, for this purpose I have come to this hour.”  (John 12:27)

Jesus denies he will pray to be saved

Note; the quote in the narration of John is during the Passover Festival at the Temple in Jerusalem, before the trial by Pharisees.

The key problem here is that John portrays Jesus both denying he will pray and actually omitting the prayer of Jesus during the crucifixion.  In (John 19:16-30), there is no prayer as the other three disciples documented.  Instead, a strong and silent Jesus is illustrated.

We conclude that based the four stories; there is a web of lies.  If we start from the first three pupils and compare them with Jesus in the gospel of John denying he will pray for salvation, then all three made a false testimony.  Yet if all three actually did see Jesus ask for deliverance, then John was the false witness because he claimed Jesus would not make the plea and disregarded the wish when it was made.  This is an ongoing bolstering attempt by John, characterizing a Jesus that can lift the cross by himself without the help of Simon and does not need God’s help either while on the cross.

Excuse; Apologists say that Jesus nobly yet unenthusiastically faced death.

Rebuttal: The problem with this excuse is that John claims Jesus did eagerly face death because that was his whole purpose for being, Jesus was waiting his whole life for that moment and was not about to spoil it by asking to be saved;

“Now is my soul troubled.  And what shall I say?  ‘Father, save me from this hour’?  No, for this purpose I have come to this hour.”  (John 12:27)

Jesus is not troubled and claims he will not even ask for being rescued, so again we have a brave Jesus in the Gospel of John, while we have a Jesus who was not only unenthusiastic to face death, a Jesus who eagerly avoided death in the other three Gospels.


  • Biblical Illness: Another alteration is the alleged last words of Jesus before he died;

“Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!”  (Luke 23:46)  Vs  “It is finished” (John 19:30).

Excuse; 1st) Bible proponents pursue to rationalize this disparity by proposing the proximity of the two disciples distorted their descriptions.  2nd)  Another attempted explanation is that Luke used the last words that he felt were necessary for his gospel account, which concentrated on the humanity of Jesus.  While John, under duress, twisted the words of Jesus for the fulfillment of the salvific message.

Rebuttal:  1st) This is excusable for two witnesses of a traffic accident giving opposing accounts due to where they observed the event from.  Yet it is unacceptable to excuse differing accounts between Bible authors asserting they are documenting the words of God.  2nd) This claim posses more questions than answers, similar to John deleting who carried the cross.

The intentional adding, deleting, or altering of the words or actions of Jesus to appease one’s own personnel interpretation of the character of Jesus is blasphemy and should therefore be named “Luke’s or John’s opinion of the Bible”, rather than “the Bible”.  For instead of having an actual recording, we are left with conjectures, hypotheses, and as the Bible defenders admit, self-satisfying alterations.  In conclusion, the distinction shows a lack of respect on both authors, trading the precise presumed last dying words of Jesus in exchange for their own gluttony.