[AL-ATHRAM]

In the name of Allah, the most gracious and merciful

If Jesus is as pure as you claim, he is born of a woman of Adam's bloodline, and he is in her womb and fed on her blood, otherwise, how did he live nine months in it? As well as when he was born, he fed her milk until his childhood as well. So, his pure blood drank that damn virus - Adam's sin - at least 50% of his mother.

If the Christian scholars said that Mary was not carrying that damned virus, we told them how?

Isn't she Ann and Joachim's daughter?!

Is not Ann and Joachim one of the children of Adam who carry this virus according to your claim? How did the virus stop in them and not infect Mary?

If they insist on their claim that Mary did not carry that virus, we say bring your proof. Rather bring your proof that the sin of Adam exists in humans.


That sin was an individual behavior that was confined to Adam and ended with him. And the behavior is not inherited. How many bad fathers have good children, and good fathers have bad children. So, that sin was limited to him and did not infect his children. Man at birth is free from sin, and then when he grows up, he makes a mistake or does not make it. As for being born with a record, this is what is not unbelievable by reason, logic, law, or religion.

Going to the trial of Jesus

“57
“57 Those who had taken Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. 58 But Peter followed him from a distance to the court of the high priest, and entered in and sat with the officers, to see the end.
59 Now the chief priests, the elders, and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus, that they might put him to death, 60 and they found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward 61 and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.’ ”
62 The high priest stood up and said to him, “Have you no answer? What is this that these testify against you?” 63 But Jesus stayed silent. The high priest answered him, “I adjure you by the living God that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. Nevertheless, I tell you, after this you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of the sky.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothing, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy. 66 What do you think?”
They answered, “He is worthy of death!” 67 Then they spat in his face and beat him with their fists, and some slapped him, 68 saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who hit you?” (Matthew 26).

This story is fabricated, and our evidence is the inconsistency of the words of " Mark" in his Gospel as we mentioned it, but let us analyze the course of events in what is stated in " Matthew ".

Jesus was taken to trial after all the disciples who were with him fled, but Peter stayed with him from afar, and when they entered the synagogue, he entered with them from afar as well, as he sat among the guards to see the end for fear of being dragged into the case while he was in need of trouble. Not forget that he was the one who said to Jesus:

“Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you.” (Matthew 26:35)

Another question, which is not the betrayal of “Peter”: Who told the details of what happened in the synagogue from the trial of Jesus?

Is it Peter? the only one who stayed with Jesus even from afar.

Certainly, the students were not present in the synagogue. They all fled as stated in the narrate" Matthew ". Therefore, they did not see the trial to narrate it to us or write it down. If Peter is the narrator let me not accept him or believe his words after what he did and before. The students did not exist, so is it one of the false witnesses, the chief priest, or one of the elders who trialed Jesus, who also will not accept their testimony. False witnesses are enough for them their false. As for the high priest and the elders, it is enough that they were the murderers who sentenced Jesus and looked for a reason to execute him.

Only those from the public people who beat, slapped, and spat on him along with the guards remained.

Does it make sense to take their testimony and leave Peter's testimony?

Fulfillment of Jesus's Prophecy in Peter.


“69 Now Peter was sitting outside in the court, and a maid came to him, saying, “You were also with Jesus, the Galilean!” 70 But he denied it before them all, saying, “I don’t know what you are
talking about.” 71 When he had gone out onto the porch, someone else saw him and said to those who were there, “This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
72 Again he denied it with an oath, “I don’t know the man.”
73 After a little while those who stood by came and said to Peter, “Surely you are also one of them, for your speech makes you known.”
74 Then he began to curse and to swear, “I don’t know the man!”
Immediately the rooster crowed. 75 Peter remembered the word which
Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three
times.” Then he went out and wept bitterly. “ (Matthew 26)



Peter cannot be the narrator of this story. Neither are the priests, the people, or the guards. Certainly, it was not a revelation from the Holy Spirit to the elect whom we do not know. For a simple reason, it is a big contradiction between the four narrates. As we saw on the topic of the contradiction of the Bible – Part II.

In Luke, the one who saw Jesus first was a maid and secondly, a man, and the third was also a man. Peter denied knowing Jesus three times. Also in Luke, after denying his knowledge of Jesus, Jesus looked at him:

“The Lord turned and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the Lord’s word, how he said to him, “Before the rooster crows you will deny me three times” (Luke 22:61)

Moreover, Peter in the third time began to curse (according to Matthew and Mark) So did he curse Jesus confirming that he did not know him? And that he hates him like them. Does this mean the utmost hypocrisy and disbelief?

“11
“11 Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, saying, “Are you the King of the Jews?”
Jesus said to him, “So you say.” When he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then Pilate said to him, “Don’t you hear how many things they testify against you?” He gave him no answer, not even one word, so that the governor marveled greatly ........... Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? ………….. But the governor answered them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” They said, “Barabbas!”
Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do to Jesus ..... They all said to him, “Let him be crucified!” Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium, ..... They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him ....... and mocked him ..... They spat on him, and took the reed and struck him on the head ....... and led him away to crucify him.
When they came to a place called “Golgotha” ..... they gave him sour wine‡ to drink mixed with gall.§ When he had tasted it, he would not drink. When they had crucified him, they divided his clothing among them ...... They set up over his head the accusation against him written, “THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.” Then there were two robbers crucified with him, one on his right hand and one on the left. Those who passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads
40 and saying, “You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross!” Likewise the chief priests also mocking with the scribes, the Pharisees, and the elders, said, “He saved others, but he can’t save himself. If he is the King of Israel, let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God deliver him now, if he wants him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ ” The robbers also who were crucified with him cast on him the same reproach.” (Matthew 27: 11-44).


A strong return in a dramatic way. It has gone beyond the painful description of Jesus who was suddenly subjected to all the contempt and mockery, in words and deeds, of his generous self. Even from two crucified thieves on his right and left who are supposed to have severed legs to die of bleeding, since crucifying alone does not kill. So, we say:

Jesus was not spared from their words either when they were in their state of crucifixion and torment from cutting off legs in anticipation of death, they participated in jokes and laughter in mockery and disgrace to Jesus. They just need to come down crawling from the crucifixion and participate in the actual harm inflicted by others, including the chief priests, the scribes, the elders, and the public people of Israel. Then they return to the crucifying waiting for death while laughing and shaking their heads.

They are supposed to be sympathetic to Jesus because they share pain and destiny (if he is Jesus, peace be upon him). As we mentioned before.

Jesus was followed only by a group of women who were braver and stronger in faith than his fleeing disciples. Mark says:


“ There were also women watching from afar, among whom were both Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; who, when he was in Galilee, followed him and served him; and many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.” (15: 40-41)

” Then all the disciples left him and fled.” (Matthew 26: 56)
“They all left him, and fled.” (Mark 14: 50)



to be continued...
By: Al-Athram