The Greatest Story NEVER Told
The Historically ISLAMIC Jesus and the TRUTH about the Crucifixion
By: Qizilbash + Anti-Mason

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Linguistic Preface: The Title "Allah" and the Name "YHWH"

A few points of linguistics must be prefaced before the subject at hand is addressed in fullness. For not only has the brutal repression of the Church blinded the masses to the historical reality of Jesus Christ himself, the Church has also concocted the Anti-Semitic lie that the term "Allah" is anything other than the `Arabic way to speak of the One Monotheistic God of the Children of Israel (as the Qur'an claims). Rather Christianity has set forth the lie that "Allah" is the name of some "moon god." This assertion is absurd, for it wasn't until the Ottoman Empire that the crescent moon and star became affiliated with the Muslim world. When the Turks conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453, they adopted the city's existing flag and symbol. Legend holds that the founder of the Ottoman Empire, `Uthman, had a dream in which the crescent moon stretched from one end of the earth to the other. Taking this as a good omen, he chose to keep the crescent and make it the symbol of his dynasty.

The `Arabic term "Allah" is a combination of two words, "Al" (ال) and "ilah" (إله). "Al" is the definite article in Arabic. Semitic linguists believe that the original root definite article of all Semitic languages was "Hal." With Hebrew it evolved as "Ha" and Arabic as "Al." Though it is not written as a letter in the Hebrew language the first consonant of the word following "the" (ה) in Hebrew is doubled just as is done by the "Lam" (ل) in the `Arabic "Al" (ال) when it precedes certain letters.

The second word is "ilah." This means "divinity" or "god." But "ilah" is not definite. It can be made feminine (إلاهة), it can be made plural (آلهة) and thus does not always convey the absoluteness of THE ONE God. So accordingly, when speaking of THE One God of Monotheism, the Qur'an says "Al-ilah" (الإله) which is conjugated into "Allah" (الله). 

Some have propagated a racist myth that the `Arabic language calls "God" by the name "Allah" because this was allegedly the name of an `Arabic "moon god." This is a lie based on white racists Christian's hatred for Semitic peoples. Christians claim that they have among them 14 Million Christian `Arabs. If that is the case, then this means that there are 14 Million Christians calling Allah by this name of "Allah" as well. The racists who tell you that "Allah is a moon god" are actually slandering the Christian faith of your brothers and sisters in Christ. 

Ironically however, the name "El" (אל) - one of the Hebrew names for God - is a name of a pagan god of the Canaanites.

"El - (also called Latipan, and possibly Dagon) He is known as the Father of the gods, 'the father of mankind', the 'Bull', and 'the creator of creatures'. He is grey haired and bearded and lives at Mt. Lel. He is a heavy drinker and has gotten extremely drunk at his banquets. Mt. Lel is where the assembly of the gods meet. It is El's abode and the source of the rivers and two oceans, as well as where those waters meet those of the firmament. It lies 'two layers beneath the wells of the earth, three spans beneath its marshes.' It had been thought to be a field and not a mountain. The mansion there has eight entrances and seven chambers."

Source: Canaanite/Ugaritic Mythology FAQ, ver. 1.2

The "Biblical Heritage Center" says the following about the Canaanite Supreme deity El: "EL is the supreme creator god of the Canaanites who lives with the other gods on Mount Zaphon (similar to Mount Olympus of the Greeks but located at the mouth of the Orontes river near the border between Turkey and Syria). He is the father of all the gods and men and is often addressed as such by the Canaanite gods. He is the god of the earth and the air who is represented by a bull. He is derived from the Sumerian god AN."

Source: http://www.biblicalheritage.org/

Certainly the similar linguistics used between the ancient Hebrews and the Canaanite pagans does not imply that their gods are the same! If there was ever an `Arabian pagan deity named anything sounding similar to "Allah" then certainly it is because "Allah" means "the God." Thus, someone naming a god would be likely to touch the linguistic root of A-L-L-H. So too is this the case with "El" being a Canaanite pagan deity and also the name of the god of the Children of Israel. 

There is no educated belief that "Allah" is a "moon God" or any other god than the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Peace be upon them all), that the Qur'an claims sameness with. If it was another god, why would their be any pretending that It is the same as the aforementioned God? The people of Arabia were already pagan. If Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him) called them to worship a moon god they would have been overjoyed. He would not have had to sell them on polytheism masquerading as monotheism, he could have simply maintained their existing traditions of worshiping 360 different gods.

All Arabic Bibles refer to "The One God" as "Allah." This is because any Arabic linguist knows that there is no other way - nor has their ever been - to speak of the One God of monotheism than by saying "the God." If you say "a god" or "ilah" then you are implying in the Semitic mind that there are other gods and this is "your God." This Islamic declaration of faith is "La ilaha ill-Allah" (لا إله إلا الله) meaning "There is no god besides the [One and Only] God."

Arabic Bibles translated by Arabian Christians demonstrate this: 

http://www.the-good-way.org/pdf/abible/ot/0195gen1.pdf

http://www.arabicbible.com/bible/doc_bible.htm

Taking a look at the first sentences of both the Bible and the Qur'an we notice the first line of Genesis in Arabic: "افِي الْبَدْءِ خَلَقَ اللهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ" meaning "In the Beginning Allah Created the Heavens and the Earth." The underlined term is "Allah" and is quite obviously the same as the following term also denoted in red: "بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِِ" meaning "In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful." There is no difference between the God of the Bible and the God of the Qur'an - at the very least one must accept that linguistically this is so. One may disagree with the Islamic understanding of the Will and Law of Allah, but certainly no one knowledgeable of Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew can say that "Allah" linguistically is any different than the Arabic version of the God of the Bible.

Furthermore, according to the Aramaic Bible Society and Aramaic dictionaries "Alah" is Aramaic for God. Aramaic was of course the vernacular "street language” of Jesus Christ's (Peace be upon him) time and region. The Aramaic Bible Society affirms that every time Jesus Christ said "God" and not "The LORD" (which is an indication he was speaking of the Hebrew proper Name of Allah, "YHWH" יהוה), that he was actually saying "Alah."

Of course one does not need to take my word for this. You can turn to a Hebrew copy of the Book of Daniyel and find that in Chapter 2, verse 42, the term "Alah/Elah" (אֱלָהּ) is used in Aramaic. Chapter 1 through 2:4a in the Book of Daniyel is in Hebrew. Chapter 2:4b through Chapter 7 are in Aramaic and then 8 through 12 are in Hebrew again. Chapter 2:24 is written in Aramaic. It clearly uses the term "Alah/Elah" EXACTLY as it appears were it transliterated from `Arabic.

"The king spoke unto Daniel, and said: 'Of a truth it is, that your God is the God of gods, and the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou hast been able to reveal this secret.'"

עָנֵה מַלְכָּא לְדָנִיֵּאל וְאָמַר, מִן-קְשֹׁט דִּי אֱלָהֲכוֹן הוּא אֱלָהּ אֱלָהִין וּמָרֵא מַלְכִין--וְגָלֵה רָזִין:  דִּי יְכֵלְתָּ, לְמִגְלֵא רָזָא דְנָה.

In the Assyrian Aramaic script we see "Alah/Elah" called "Alaha" (ܐܠܗܐ). Regardless of this additional "Olap" in the Assyrian script, we see plainly from the ancient BIBLICAL times, that the Prophet Daniyel and those who spoke Aramaic in that time spelled "Alah" as "אֱלָהּ" in the Book of Daniyel, which would be "ܐܠܗ" in the Assyrian. This of course is almost identical with what Hebrew actually is for "God" in the Bible. In Hebrew "Allah" is "Eloah." "Elohim" also is used traditionally thought to be a denotation of grandeur although this was not in common parlance yet at the time of the Torah's writing. Orthodox clergymen will argue that the "us" and "our" (as in "Let US make man in OUR image..." and "In the image of Elohim THEY created them both male AND female") in the creation passage of Sefer Ha'Berashit are simply examples of the "royal we" used by emperors, but this rationalization is false. Sefer Ha'Berasheet was written before the "royal we" originated. It began with the first Roman emperor, Augustus, and included the emperor and his loyal civil administrators. Afterwards, it was sometimes used in pagan religious ceremonies in the pre-Christian Roman Empire, which at that time was polytheistic. Moreover, it is unreasonable to imagine that the Qur'an would employ this pagan custom, which was NOT to be found within the pages of the Torah, contrary to popular belief and wishful thinking of Trinitarians.

The term is most commonly used as "Eloah" (God) or "Elohenu" (Your God) in the Tanakh. "Elohim" is also used for the pagan gods of Egypt in the Book of Exodus 12:12 when it is said "Elohim-Mitzrayim" (אלוהי מערים), or in 18:11 where it is written that "YHWH is greater than the Elohim" (יהוה מכל האלוהים). So to simply say "God" the Nevi'im (Prophetic Books of the Tanukh), often said "Eloah." Thought the English transliteration may make it seem ambiguous through the voweling, "E" is actually the consonantal "A" or "Alef" the same as in "Allah." Eloah is actually spelled "אלוה" or sometimes “אלה.” But all Hebrew dictionaries have "Allah" as "אלוה" and "Elohim" (אלוהים) again, used in MODERN Hebrew, as a special term to mean "The Great God" or "God the Greatest" - much like the Arabic "Allahu Akbaar" (الله اكبر) meaning "Allah is the Greatest." 

This is the same sort of use as in Shir Ha'Shirim (Song of Songs), 5:16 in the Hebrew Tanakh: "His mouth is most sweet: he is MUHAMAD the Great (מחמדים). This is my Beloved, and this is my Friend, O daughters of Yerushalayim."

חִכּוֹ, מַמְתַקִּים, וְכֻלּוֹ, מַחֲמַדִּים; זֶה דוֹדִי וְזֶה רֵעִי, בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם

Here "Muhammad" is called "Muhamadim" (מחמדים). As one can tell from the verse, we are told "He" not "they" (as "they" is used to reference "Elohim" in the Torah) so we know that if a plural suffix is actually an indication of grandeur, rather than plurality then this would be such a case. Similarly, there is no Hebrew word for "Muhamadim" which would essentially be translated here as "He is altogether LOVELIES." So we know that it must be plural of the Hebrew "Mahamad" (מַחְמָד). Likewise, no Bible says "In the Beginning gods created the Heavens and the Earth," (בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ), despite the fact that the plural suffix is at the end of Eloah, thus making "Elohim." However, the point can, and has been, argued (based on Hebrew grammar, as this usage was much later than the Torah and was GRAMMATICALLY used with singular terms. That is, we see the term "he" instead of "they" with this plural noun), that the use of "Elohim" in the Torah was in fact a byproduct of the Northern "Israeli" Tribes, constantly rebuked - throughout the sections of the "Old Testament" known as the "Nevi'im" - for the polytheistic whoring after false "gods."

Those "gods" were often historical beings whic the Torah refers to as "Nefilim" or in some cases the Angles themselves, who primitive peoples saw as the personification of elemental forces. In those days the belief was that there were only five primordial elements, until the 6th Imam of Islam, Ja'far as-Sadiq clarified that there were in fact over 100 elements. Interestingly, and not without significance, the 57th Sura "At-Tin" the Sura of "Iron" matches the Atomic weight of the element iron.

With that understanding "Eloah" is actually only one letter short of being "Allah" since Semitic languages only have consonantal letters (Alef is considered a consonant in both Arabic and Hebrew). If "Allah" were spelled in Hebrew it would be "אללה" yet "Eloah" is simply "אלה," or “אלוה.” To say "Allah" is the same as saying "Allah" just the same as if one said "Gott" in German, or in French "dieu," in Italian "dio," in Spanish "Dios," in Portuguese "Deus," in Farsi "Khuda," in Hebrew "Eloah," in Aramaic "Alah," and yes in Arabic "Allah.” The myth that "Allah" is some "other" Allah, is a myth of the Catholic crusaders dating back to the middle ages. This myth is based in religious and ethnic hatred, and not one iota of fact.

What is Allah?

When i say "Hu" in reference to God Almighty, i am speaking in the masculine pronoun because in Semitic languages there is no such thing as a gender neutral pronoun as there is in English. In English we have the pronoun "IT." However, in Semitic languages the “default” gender neutral pronoun is “Hu.”

 

`Ali, the cousin of Muhammad, who was the son of Muhammad's foster parents and who Muhammad raised basically from infancy - this same `Ali about whom all Muslims accept that Muhammad said "You are my brother in this world and the next" - this `Ali and his descendents told those who asked them, that if one wished to, they could think of Allah as a "Thing" since that would prevent them of anthropomorphizing Allah and attributing qualities of the creation to the Creator.

Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub has narrated from `Ali ibn Ibrahim, from Muhammad ibn `Isa from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abu Najran who said the following.

"I asked Imam Abu ‘Abd'ullah about the Oneness of Allah saying, ‘Can I think of Him (the creator) as a thing?’"

The Imam replied, "Yes, but not as something well understood and clearly defined with in limits. What may become a subject of your thoughts is different from Him. Nothing resembles Him and the thoughts and imaginations can not reach Him. He is different from what can become the subject of thoughts and is different from whatever that can be perceived in ones thoughts. You can think of Him as some thing but not well understood and clearly defined (under certain limits)."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 215, Ch. 2, h 1

Muhammad ibn ‘Abd'ullah has narrated from Muhammad ibn Isma‘il from al-Husayn ibn al-Hassan from Bakr ibn Salih from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id who said that I asked Imam Abu Ja‘far, the second the following:

"Is it permissible to say that Allah is a thing?"

The Imam replied, "Yes, because it removes two kinds of limitations, the limitation of being forgotten altogether and that of considering Him like other things."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 216, Ch. 2, h 2

It is narrated from Imam Abu Ja‘far who said when he was asked, "Is it permissible to say Allah is a thing?" "Yes, it is permissible because it excludes Him from being ignored altogether and from being analogized or considered similar to the creatures."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 221, Ch. 2, h 7

So let us be clear that when any educated Muslim speaks of Allah as "He" - or "Hu" in both Hebrew (הוא) and `Arabic (هو) - then we do not mean that God Most High, who is exalted far above Hu's Creation - is a man. So this is one of many reasons why, throughout many teachings, i refer to God with the Hebrew and `Arabic pronoun "Hu" to point back to the original word used. i find this preferable to mistranslating it as a masculine gendered pronoun into a language with a gender neutral pronoun. This does not mean that there was no other reason why the masculine pronoun would have been used for God. However, that is not within the context of this topic. Suffice it to say that when a gender neutral option exists in a language, then it becomes questionable at best to attribute gender to a non-gendered Being.

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Yunus from Abu al-Maghra in a marfu‘ manner from Imam Abu Ja‘far who has said the following: "Allah is distinct from His creatures and His creatures are different from Him and whatever that is called a thing is a creature except Allah."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 217, Ch. 2, h 3

It is narrated from Imam Abu "Abd'ullah who said, "Allah is distinct from His creatures and the creatures are different from Him. Whatever could be called a thing is a creature except Allah Who is the Creator of all things. Holy is He for Whom there is no similarity and He is all-hearing and All-Aware."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 218, Ch. 2, h 4

So when "Hu" is said, in this text, it does not mean that Hu has sexual organs nor that Hu is anthropomorphic. For to think that really would assert that it is not Allah who is anthropomorphic, but we human beings who are "god-like" since it is God who Existed long before creation, and Exists outside of the context of time, beginning or end. So if one believes that God looks like man, has the gender of man, or the like then they are essentially saying that man is a god-like creation. They do not comprehend Allah with the Understanding due unto Hu!
 

When we speak of God, of Allah, we do not speak of an anthropomorphic being. As the Tanakh says:

"God (El) is not a man (ish) that He should lie; nor the 'son of man/Adam' (a Hebrew term meaning 'human being' as all humans are the sons of Adam) , that He should repent: when He has said, will He not do it? Or when He has spoken, will He not make it good?"

לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב, וּבֶן-אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם; הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, וְדִבֶּר וְלֹא יְקִימֶנָּה.

So clearly God is not a man, nor the "son of man." God is not Something that grows weary after creation. God is not a man who reproduces or begets children, nor does God stem from any Source other than Himself, or Itself. God is the Source of ALL that exists, and of every potentiality that could ever exist within the Divine Order, or Law of the Universal Construct that is the sustained Thought Construct of the Divine Mind.

God sees, but without the physical organ of sight, and for this reason it is said within Seferim Ha'Zohar that should the Eye of God close for even a second, the Universe would be destroyed.

It is narrated from Imam Abu Ja‘far who said, "Allah is distinct from His creatures and the creatures are different from Him and whatever could be called a thing is a creature except Allah Who is the Creator of all things."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 219, Ch. 2, h 5

It is narrated from Imam Abu `Abd'ullah , who said this to an atheist on being asked a question. "He (Allah) is a thing but different from all other things. I repeat my statement that speaks about Him as a thing. He is a thing in the sense of the reality of things except that He does not have a body and form. He does not have a feeling (like our sense of feeling) or touching and He does not comprehend with the five senses (as we do). Imaginations can not comprehend Him and the timeless (Dahr) times does not reduce Him and the times do not change Him."

The man asking questions then said, "Do you say that He hears and sees?"

The Imam said, "He does hear and see: He hears without a hearing organ and sees without a means. He Himself hears and He Himself sees. My saying "He hears without a hearing organ and sees without a means. He Himself hears and He Himself sees" does not mean that He is a thing and His-self is another thing but that I only meant to express my self thereby as I was questioned and explained to you as you had asked a question. Thus, I can say that He hears with the whole of His-self but not in the sense that His whole self has parts but that I intended to explain it to you and to express my self. All I meant thereby is that He does hear, see and He is all-knowing and is the expert in knowing without any multiplicity in His-self or meaning."

The man asking questions then said, "What then is He?"

The Imam said, "He is the Lord. He is the One Who is worshipped and He is Allah. When I say Allah, it does not mean establishing the proof for these letters (of alphabet) like Alif, Lam, Ha’, al-Ra’ or al-Ba’ but I intend thereby the meaning of a thing and a thing that is the Creator of all things and the Designer of all things. These letters only refer to the meaning that is called Allah, al-Rahman (the Beneficent), al-Rahim (the Merciful), al-‘Aziz (the Majestic) etc., of the other such names and He is the One Who is worshipped, the Majestic, the Glorious One."

The man asking questions then said, "Given the above, whatever we can think of is but a creature."

The Imam then said, "Were it to the way you said we would not have had any responsibility to believe in the Oneness of the Creator because we will not have any responsibility towards something of whose existence we can not even think of. In fact we say that whatever is thought of in our senses is comprehended thereby by means of drawing limits around it and is analogized, thus, such a thing is a creature. (It then becomes necessary for us to find proof for the existence of the Creator of things. (We must find that is) clear of the two invalid and confusing aspects) if the meaning of negation would be nullification and nothingness or as is the case of the second aspect, the similarity and analogy which is of the attributes of the creatures that under go manifest composition and assemblage. It becomes necessary to prove the existence of the Creator. It is because of the existence of the creatures and their evident dependency on Him as His creatures and that their Creator is something other than them and that He is not similar to them because something similar to them would resemble them in manifest composition and assemblage. It would be as such also in the matters such as coming into existence from nothing and their changing from a smaller size to a full grown size, from blackness to whiteness from strength to weakness and other existing conditions that we do not need to explain their existence."

The man asking questions then said, "You have already defined and limited Him in your proving His existence."

The Imam then said, "I did not limit Him. I only proved His existence if (as you think) there is no difference between proving and disproving."

The man asking questions then said, "Can His existence be proved through a reasoning from the effect to the cause or the cause to the effect?"

The Imam said, "Yes, there is nothing whose existence can be proved without adopting either of the two above process of reasoning."

The man then asked, "Does the question how apply to Him?"

The Imam said, "No, this question does not apply to Him because it is the aspect of qualities and limitations. However, it is necessary to avoid abandoning and analogizing Him because negating Him is denying His existence and refusing to accept Him as the Lord and abandoning Him altogether. Whoever would analogize Him with other things from His creatures he has proved the qualities of the creature in Him, the creatures that do not deserve being called the Lord. It, however, is necessary to believe that the question how applies to Him only in a way that would not apply to things other than Him and things other than Him would not deserve and share Him in it. The how question can not apply to Him if it would limit Him or make Him the subject of knowing for others."

The man then asked, "Do things make Him tired?"

The Imam then said, "He is far Exalted and above experiencing such conditions. Such conditions are due to coming into physical association or dealing with the creatures. They are of the qualities of the creatures who can only associate with others through physical contact but He is the Most High and His will and demand are effective and He does whatever He wants."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 220, Ch. 2, h 6

As can clearly be seen from the words of the Imams - the A'immah of the Ahl'ul-Bayt, the family of Muhammad and his progeny - our Lord is not some anthropomorphic "god" like the polytheists imagine. Our "God" (the ONLY God and ONLY Reality), does not move from one place to another within Space-Time. Allah is the ONLY Reality that is; this is the meaning of "La ilaha ill-Allah." Nothing exists save the Divine Mind's Thought Construct, and within that Thought Construct are thoughts themselves and the individual identities of ego-selves (nufus), they come to be fomented and identified by. These are the "you" and the "i."

However, in Islam, these things are nothing save thoughts within the Mind of Allah. Thus, an atheist may demand proof of the Existence of God, but this stems from their ignorance in presuming that their own independent and separate Existence can be proven and taken for granted. So before such people wish to see proof of God, they should prove that they themselves exist, and then demonstrate how their existence is separate from that Whole, that Totality that is the very Construct of Allah's Mind.

The Exoteric Name "Allah"

Previously i mentioned that the Name "Allah" is a conjunction of the prefix "Al" and the term "ilah." Though this is linguistically an obvious matter, there are some (even some raised Shi'a), who are unaware of this and erroneously believe "Allah" to be the proper and Supreme Name of God. This is simply not the case.

When we say "God" we mean "Allah." For in `Arabic "God" is "ilah" (إله). The term "God" or "ilah" (إله), can be made feminine (إلاهة); thus attributing gender to God. Or it can be made plural (آلهة); thus associating partners with God. This is why Muslims use the Name "Allah" because it is not subject to genderization, nor pluralization, as is the term "ilah" in `Arabic or "Eloah" in Hebrew. Thus, when i speak of "God" throughout this teaching i use the term "Ha'Eloah" which would be the Hebrew way of grammatically expressing what "Allah" expresses in `Arabic.

So when the Muslim says "God" we do not mean "ilah" we do not mean this term that can be made gendered or plural. We mean THE ONLY GOD. The first principle of Islam is the Shahadah, or declaration of God's Unity. It is to say that one bears Witness to the Reality of "La ilaha ill-Allah" (لا إله إلا الله) meaning "There is no god, but The God." The definite article in English is "the" in Hebrew it is "Ha" in `Arabic it is "Al." So instead of "God" the Qur'an refers to God as "The [ONLY] God" which is said "Al-ilah" or "Allah" in `Arabic. With that said, that we do not associate partners with God, nor do we identify Him with anthropomorphic traits, reproductive organs, nor the position of sexually reproducing, i will continue.

The collection of oral Traditions called "Hadith (plural "Ahadith") called "Usul al-Kafi" explains that the A'immah themselves taught that Allah is a combination of Al-ilah.

`Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from an-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Hisham ibn al-Hakam who has said that he asked Abu ‘Abd'ullah about the names of Allah and their derivations and roots.

"What is the root from which the word Allah is derived?"

The Imam replied, "O Hisham, the word Allah is derived from 'ilah,' that is, the One Who is worshipped and the One who is worshipped is supposed to be worth worshipping. The name of Allah is different from His Own self. Whoever worships the name not the meaning has become a heathen and has, in fact, worshipped nothing. Whoever worships the name and its meaning jointly, he becomes a polytheist because of worshipping two gods. Whoever worships the meaning of the word Allah only he, in reality, has worshipped the One Allah (Allah). O Hisham, did you grasp it?"

Hisham requested, "Kindly enlighten me more."

The Imam added, "Allah has ninety-nine names. If each name had a separate meaning then each meaning would have been a god. Allah is One only and all His names stand for just One Reality and all these names are other than Allah Himself. O Hisham, bread is the name of something to eat. Water is the name of something to drink. Dress is the name of something to wear on. Fire is the name of something that burns. O Hisham, did you fully grasp the point so you can defend your belief and contest successfully against our opponents, who, along with Allah, the Exalted, the Great, except things other than Him?"

Hisham replied, "Yes, I did understand."

The Imam said, "O Hisham, may Allah benefit you thereby and grant you steadfastness."

Hisham (the narrator) says, "I swear by Allah, no one has ever defeated me on the issue of the Oneness of Allah until now."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi: H 310, Ch. 16, h 2

As well, the authoritative "Tafsir" or "exegesis" of Allamah Tabatabai called "Al-Mizan" states in volume 1 that: "'Allah' (= the divine name) was originally al-Ilah; the 'I'; in the middle was omitted because of frequent use. al-Ilah is derived from alaha ( = he worshipped) or from aliha or waliha (= he was bewildered). It is on paradigm of al-fi’al in meaning of al-maf’ul (= object-noun). For example, al-Kitab means al-Maktub (= the written); likewise al-Ilah means al-Ma’luh that is, the One who is worshipped, or the One about whom minds are bewildered."

"And your Ilah (God) is One Ilah (Gpd), La ilaha ila huwa (there is no god who has the right to be worshipped but He) the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful." Al-Qur'an, Sura 2:163

وَإِلَـهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ لاَّ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ

The collection of Ahadith entitled "Bihar al-Anwar" explains that Imam `Ali and other A'immah performed miracles through the "Supreme Name" of Allah which is in Hebrew. Of the prophesied "Mahdi" who will rise at the "End of the Age" with Jesus Christ himself - these being the "Two Witnesses" of the Book of Revelation - it is said:

"After receiving permission [to manifest himself], the [hidden] Imam will pronounce the Hebrew Name of Allah; then his Companions, 313 in all, will gather around him in Mecca, in the same way that small clouds come together in the autumn."

An-Nu'mani, Kitab al-Ghayba, ch.20 p.445

Of this Hebrew Name we are told: "[In the beginning] Allah created a Name with non-sonorous letters, with an unpronounced vowel, an entity without a body; [a Name] indescribable, of a colorless color, unlimited, veiled, though not covered with a veil, from all the senses and from all imagination. Allah made a perfect word out of it; a word composed of four parts, none of which existed before the others; from these four parts, He showed three Names, in order to respond to a need felt by the creatures, keeping one of them veiled: the Hidden, Secret Name. Of the [three] Names shown, the exoteric name is Allah, the Exalted, the Most High. Then He gave each of these three Names four Pillars, a total of twelve Pillars in all, and created thirty Names for each Pillar... These Names added to the Most Beautiful Names make a total of 360 Names, all coming from the [first] three Names that are the Pillars and the Veils of the Single Secret Name, hidden by these three Names..."

Al-Kulayni, Usul, "Kitab al-Hujja," Bab huduth al-asma, vol. 1 p.151-52, num 1; Ibn Babuye, Kitab al-Tawhid, ch.29, p. 190-91, num 3.

Interestingly, we are told that the Hidden Name of Allah is composed of four parts. From these four parts we are given three names totaling 12 parts altogether. In the mystical text Sefer Ha'Zohar, it is said that the Four Letter Name YHWH manifested 12 Primordial Powers, that were pre-existent beings in the Universe. We are furthermore told in Shi'a Ahadith that like the Name YHWH the Supreme Name of Allah is Hebrew and also of four letters. This is the veiled Name which only the Mahdi, the return of Elijah the Prophet, and the Messiah himself have understanding of.

The Supreme Name of Allah

"The Mahdi is so called because he will lead (yahdi) to a secret teaching." - Imam Al-Baqir

Ibn Babuye, Kamal ad-din, vol. 1, ch. 33, p 331;

“I am the Sign of the All-Powerful. I am the First and the Last. I am the Manifest and the Hidden. I am the Face of Allah. I am the Hand of Allah. I am the side of Allah. I am he who in the Injil is called Ilyas. I am he who keeps the secret of Rasul’ullah.”

Imam `Ali “Khutbat’ul-Bayan” - Henry Corbin, En Islam Iranien, vol. I, p. 96

What is this "secret teaching," this "Secret of Muhammad" that `Ali kept and Imam Baqir said the Mahdi will bring?

"After receiving permission [to manifest himself], the [hidden] Imam will pronounce the Hebrew Name of Allah; then his Companions, 313 in all, will gather around him in Mecca, in the same way that small clouds come together in the autumn."

An-Nu'mani, Kitab al-Ghayba, ch.20 p.445

The first "element of power" of the Imam is the Supreme Name of Allah (Al-ism al-a`zam/al-ism al-akbar). According to words ascribed via several chains of transmission to Juwayria ibn Mushir, a companion of `Ali , the supreme Name (in its full expansion) appears to be a mystical phrase in Syriac or in Hebrew.

In one narration, `Ali and his companions are in Babylonia (ard Babil); the sun is about to set and it is time for evening prayer; `Ali then says that the land of Babylonia is damned because it was the first region where idols were worshipped, and that it is forbidden for the Prophet and their Heirs to perform prayer in this land. The companions are worried because the sun is setting and they are going to miss the best time for evening prayer; but `Ali calmly continues his travel until the group leaves the region; then, when the sun has completely disappeared over the horizon, he asks that his companions prepare for evening prayer. Juwayria reports that the Imam, withdrawing from the group, began to whisper a phrase in Syriac or Hebrew (suryani aw `ibrani); then the sun began to reappear from behind the mountains, and the people could say their prayer. When Juwayria asked about is, `Ali replied that he had spoken the Supreme Name, and that through the power of this Name he was able to reverse the time.

if even some of the claims regarding the Supreme Name are true, then the power of the Supreme Name seems terrifying. According to many accounts, only Prophets and A'immah (plural of Imam) are able to stand such power. This is what we might conclude from a hadith reported by As-Saffar: Umar ibn Hanzala, a close disciple of Al-Baqir, asked his master to teach him the Supreme Name.

"Can you stand it?" asked the fifth Imam, to which the disciple replied affirmatively.

They then went to the Imam's home, where his hand was placed on the earth as he began to say the Name; the house was plunged into the greatest darkness, and Umar's entire body began to tremble. He nevertheless heard the first part of the phrase and the Imam ordered him to not divulge it; al-Baqir raised his hand off the ground and things became normal again.

On Jwayris ibn Mushir al-`Abdi al-Kufi, see at-Tusi, Rijal, p.37 num 4; Al-Ardabili, Jami' ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p.169-70.
Basa'ir, section 5, ch. 2, pp 217-19; see also Ibn Babuye, Am`Ali , "majlis" 71, p.467-68, num. 10 (`Ali states that the Supreme Name is in Syriac).

Basa'ir section 4, ch 12, nadir min al-bab, p.210, num 1. However, a hasty statement by Ja'far according to which the Companion of Muhammad, Salman al-Farisi had learned the Supreme Name (al-Kashshi, rijal, p.7; al-Mufid, al-Ikhtisas, p.11) suggests that the terrifying Name was taught to initiates who had been especially tested. Accordingly, the Imam then said that if Abu Dharr [Al-Ghifari] had received Salman's Science he would fall into infidelity (al-Mufid, al-Ikhtisas, p.12; al-Majlisi, Bihar, vol. 6 p783)? According to the Hadith, Salman and Abu Dharr were both close disciples of Imam `Ali . The formed is in a sense the prototype of an esoteric spirituality, and the latter of an ascetic exoteric spirituality.

Both Judaism and Christianity have lost knowledge of the Holy Name YHWH; with the latter having never attained it on the first place. So-called "Jehovah's Witnesses" claim that this name is pronounced "Jehovah" even though there is no "J" in the Hebrew Alphabet! The misunderstanding surrounding the ignorant transliteration of YHWH as "Jehovah" stems from German translators of the Bible. When the diacritical vowel marks were added to the Tanakh the vowel markings for the name "Adonai" (אָדוֹן) meaning "Lord" were imposed on the letters YHWH (יהוה), in an effort to prevent someone from reading the Torah and accidentally reciting the correct pronunciation of YHWH. Since German does not have a Y, they transliterated "YHWH" as "Jehovah." They also did not know that when a vav (ו) procedes a Hay (ה) in this manner, the vav acts as a long vowel.

Allah remains inconceivably Transcendent, who can be described or apprehended only in the terms with which Hu has described Hu'self in Hu's Revelation. This is why the term "thing" (shay`) can be applied to Allah. Again, in reply to the question "Is it permissible to say that Allah is a thing?" Al-Baqir said "Yes, since [this term] places Allah outside of the two limits of agnosticism (ta`til) and assimilationism (tashbih)."

Al-Kulayni, Usul, Kitab at-Tawhid, bad itlaq al-qawt bi-annahu shay`, vol. 1, pg 109 number 2 Ibn Babuye, Kitab at-Tawhid, ch. 7,. p. 104, num 1

A Final Note On Linguistic Terminology

So in summarization when either the term "God," "Ha'Eloah" or "Allah" are used in teachings, they are used in accordance with who is being spoken to. When i address my Christian Brothers and Sisters, then i primarily use the term "God" and often the pronoun "He." However, when speaking to Jews, or Jews and Christians, i will tend to revert back to the original Hebrew language that the Tanakh was written in, which is the language of the Supreme Name of Allah in the Shi'a tradition. Some Western Christians might find this somewhat awkward as might some of my Muslim Brothers and Sisters reading this who are more familiar with the `Arabic names for these Prophets and for God. From the context, the individual specified is fairly clear. If there is any confusion, one can easily consult a Bible or the like for clarification.

As well for the sake of our Brothers and Sisters in the West who are not familiar with the true names used by `Isa Al-Masih, the Greek "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" will be used for clarity. However, this should not be seen as a concession to the Roman Antichrist false image of this Prophet and Messiah. When the Greek Bible says kurioV (koo'-ree-os) it means: "he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord; the possessor and disposer of a thing; the owner; one who has control of the person, the master; in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor; is a title of honor expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master." In the original Hebrew, this term was "Reb" (רַב) as in "Rabbi."

So we must always remember that "lord Jesus Christ" or "Rabbi Yashuah Ha'Mashiah" was Hebrew not Greek. Thus, when the Greek language, which evolved around pagan culture and concepts, tries to explain this man, it will do so in context of a pagan culture and in a pagan language that Jews were forbidden to so much as speak in Jesus' day.

But again, because names like "`Isa" and "Yashuah" mean little or nothing to the majority of Christians - despite the fact that these were the two names used most often by the man they claim to worship as god incarnate - the more familiar Western names will generally be used here.

As well, it is common for Muslims to always follow the name of a Prophet with the blessing "Alayhi Salaam" (عليه سلام), or a Saint with "Radhi Allah `Anhu" (رضي الله عنه). For the sake of readability for the non-Muslim readers of this work, these Blessings are being offered here in advance to all Prophets and Saints mentioned herein. Insha'Allah (God Willing), the reverence and respect for these Prophets and Warners will be obvious, and reflected throughout this work.

As well, when the Seal of the Prophet's (Muhammad), is mentioned, it is traditional and out of respect that we Muslims say: "Sal Allahu `alayhi wa-alhi wa-Salaam" (صل الله عليه واله وسلام). The respect for Muhammad and his progeny, should also be apparent; and every time they are mentioned herein, even in passing, a Blessing is implied. With that said, let us begin in the Name of Allah the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful...

The Truth About Jesus

On the subject of crucifixion Muslims are told in no uncertain terms, in the Holy Qur'an (the Revelation of Allah to His Prophet foretold throughout the Bible, the "Old Testament"), that "they didn't kill him, nor did they crucify him." But it was made to appear to them so. And those who dispute therein, are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge; they only follow conjecture, guesswork (وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ).

For certainly the Jews did not kill Jesus, nor did they crucify him; “wa ma qatala hu wa ma salabu hu” (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ). This is something that we know not only from the explicit and uncompromising statement, affirmation of historical fact found within the pages of the Holy Qur'an, but we may also come to a realization of this reality from the pages of the Bible itself.

For the Christian mind, the Qur'anic affirmation of the history of the so-called "crucifixion" is unacceptable. The Christians will say within their hearts that it is unacceptable to accept the testimony of a man 600 hundred years after the event. But this is ultimately not the real issue. The issue is that they reject the Prophethood of Muhammad to begin with. Had Muhammad told them things that "their itching ears longed to hear" (to quote Paul in 2 Timothy 4:3, who was himself a master of telling the lawless pagans of Rome what they wanted to hear), then surely they would have accepted him immediately. But Muhammad did not speak out of turn, he did not speak misinformed, or in ignorance of what the Christians say regarding the crucifixion.

In the same way he did not speak a word of error when he called Jesus Christ, the Messiah of God Almighty, "`Isa" rather than the pre-Qur'anic `Arabic name for him "Yasu" or "Yasua" as it is "Yashua" in Jesus' native Hebrew language. If your name is Joshua, (English for Jesus), and you wished to introduce yourself to an `Arabic speaker, you would say "Ana Yasua" (أنا يسوع) you would not say "Ana `Isa" (أنا عيسی). Joshua the son of Nun is called “Yasua ibn Nun” NOT “`Isa ibn Nun.” The Qur’an chose such terms deliberately, to subtly convey the TRUE history of Jesus, including the name he was known by when he returned to India after faking his death on the cross.

Yes, in Truth, God Almighty is quite particular about the choice of words in His Book. There is a very specific reason for all of these particularities of the words within the Qur'an; the words that we Muslims believe and accept as the dictation of historical, scientific and legal Truth from Allah Most High, through the Archangel Gabriel to the Seal of his Prophets, Muhammad.

So why the discrepancy? Why would Islam assert for 1,400 years that Christianity had the issue of the Crucifixion all wrong? Why do Muslims think that after 2,000 years Christianity could have gotten this issue so terribly wrong without someone realizing it and challenging it? First and foremost, there is the historical reality that cannot be forgotten, that at one time not long ago the Church was the most powerful entity on Earth. It was so immensely powerful that it could bring down entire governments. Although the Church is generally not viewed as this powerful any longer we may nevertheless get a glimpse into the power of the Church as a political organ by recalling that the recent Pope John Paul II was credited with being at least partially responsible for the fall of the former Soviet Union, through his influence on the Polish labor union Solidarity, the Catholic populous of Poland and various underground organizations.

Moreover, we must never forget the ruthless terror campaigns on the Church in the form of the Crusades and more enduringly, the Spanish Inquisition. Without question, this was one of the most ruthless and prolonged campaigns in human history, for the purpose of establishing the Church dogma as the uncontested religious doctrine on Earth.

While Judaism thrived and experienced is Renaissance under the rule of the formerly Muslim Spain, the Christian church would follow by hunting down both Jews and Muslims alike in an oppressive effort to deter and punish all forms of deviation from "Mother Church." The Inquisition lasted for 603 years (1231 to 1834), though the most brutal period was between 1478 and 1834. In the beginning the primary targets of the church were Jews and Muslims, but the enemy list quickly broadened to encompass political enemies, and scientists who dared propose theories contrary to the Church's official (and mostly unscientific) theories.

The Inquisition spread like wild fire throughout Europe and found some of its most savage expression during the Protestant Reformation of 1517. The methods of the Inquisition included torture, confiscation of property, the ripping of body parts while the victim was still alive, and execution by burning. Jews were forced to leave Spain, the Moriscos, Spanish converts to Islam were systematically wiped out by Tomás de Torquemada.

The Catholic Encyclopedia still to this day attempts to justify this mass murderer's actions by saying: "Whether Torquemada's ways of ferreting out and punishing heretics were justifiable is a matter that has to be decided not only by comparison with the penal standard of the fifteenth century, but also, and chiefly, by an inquiry into their necessity for the preservation of Christian Spain."

As well, the same text gives justification of the Anti-Semitism of the Inquisition by saying: "The Marranos committed serious outrages against Christianity and endeavoured to judaize the whole of Spain."

Shocking as it may be to the cushioned psyche of the average Western reader who has never heard such stark realities about European and Christian history, this Holocaust continued until the 19th century, and claimed approximately 50 Million innocent victims.

As well as practicing a different religion, or espousing a different political or scientific view than that of the Church, under the 603 year long rule of uncompromising Christian censorship, if you were caught with any of the "Index of Forbidden Books" by Pope Paul IV, you would be subject to excommunication, horrendous torture and death. Horrifyingly, this "Index of Forbidden Books" of the former Pontiff was not abolished until 1966, just 3 years before the Church would admit they had lied for nearly 2,000 years about Maryam Ha'Magdalit (Magdalene), supposedly being a whore!

It is evident for all who are willing to take an objective look into history as to why the official, Nicean version of Christianity's claims about Jesus Christ, his teachings and the crucifixion remained uncontested for so long, save by Islam which then faced the brunt of the Church's attack ever since.

This Historical Backdrop to Jesus' Ministry

Contrary to the prevalent notions within Christianity, Jesus Christ was not a pacifist telling to masses of oppressed Jews to submit to Roman authority as Paul preached. When Paul came on the scene, his statements (later accepted as "Gospel" by the Church), told his followers: "Slaves be obedient to your masters." Ephesians 6:5

oi douloi, upakouete toiV kata sarka kurioiV meta fobou kai tromou en aplothti thV kardiaV umwn wV tw cristw,

In verse 12 of the same letter, he said "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world’s rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."

oti ouk estin hmin h palh proV aima kai sarka, alla proV taV arcaV, proV taV exousiaV, proV touV kosmokratoraV tou skotouV toutou, proV ta pneumatika thV ponhriaV en toiV epouranioiV.

This was a far different concept than what the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, or Jesus himself taught. While each of us fights our own inner "Jahada nafsah" (Jihad against the ego-self), the Tanakh had always maintained that the forces of Spiritual Light and Spiritual Darkness manifested in physicality. This alone might be one of the most profoundly unrealized notions of the Bible to Christians. When the so-called "Fallen Angels" (Nefilim), came to Earth, they were referred to in the Torah as PHYSICAL beings, who raped women and propagated a hybrid species called the "Refa'im" in Hebrew described in the Qur'an as "Jinn."

"That the B'nei Elohim saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the Face of the Earth, and daughters were born unto them The Nefilim were in the Earth in those days, and also after that, when the B'nei Elohim came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown." - Sefer Ha'Berashit (The Book of Genesis) 6:1-2, 4

 ...וַיְהִי כִּי הֵחֵל הָאָדָם, לָרֹב עַל פְּנֵיהָאֲדָמָה; וּבָנוֹת, יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם. וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה; וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ

הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ, בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וְגַם אַחֲרֵי כֵן אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם: הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מ ;ֵעוֹלָם, אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם

These "Refa'im" that proceeded from the loins of these "Nefilim" were physical tribes and adversaries that the Children of Israel encountered and fought against. Satan himself - while exerting spiritual influence - was taken as a physical being who had been caste down to Earth with these "fallen Angels."

We see in the Torah as well that the Holy Angels who appeared to Abraham and then to Lot before the destruction of S'dom and 'Amorrah were physical beings. We see that they were taken to be attractive, strong men by the homosexuals at S'dom and `Amorrah who wished Lot to turn them over to them for gang rape.

"And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to you this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'" Genesis 19:5

וַיִּקְרְאוּ אֶל-לוֹט וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ, אַיֵּה הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר-בָּאוּ אֵלֶיךָ הַלָּיְלָה; הוֹצִיאֵם אֵלֵינוּ, וְנֵדְעָה אֹתָם.

The Torah speaks of the Order or Tribe of Angels knows as the Serafim as being physical sent among the Children of Israel to punish them:

"And YHWH sent Serafim (Fiery Serpents) among the people, and they bit/stung the people; and many people of Israel died." Numbers 21:6

 וַיְשַׁלַּח יְהוָה בָּעָם, אֵת הַנְּחָשִׁים הַשְּׂרָפִים, וַיְנַשְּׁכוּ, אֶת הָעָם; וַיָּמָת עַם רָב, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל

This notion of Paul's that was later brutally imposed by the Church was a new notion, one that Jesus Christ himself never spoke of nor introduced. To the Jews, including Jesus and his Disciples, the battle was a very tangible, hands on PHYSICAL one. The Christian perspective on this matter stands in stark contrast right between the ancient Judaic understanding of this battle - described in detail in the Dead Sea Scrolls as the Battle between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness - and that of Islam which maintained the more ancient, pre-Paulian understanding of the matter.

Since Jesus himself said that he did not come to abolish even the smallest letter of the Torah and Nevi'im (prophets), where did these notions of Paul come from... Certainly not from Jesus!

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (Torah, תּוֹרָה) or the Prophets (Nevi'im, נְבִיאִים); I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law; until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Matthew 5:17-20

mh nomishte oti hlqon katalusai ton nomon h touV profhtaV: ouk hlqon katalusai alla plhrwsai. amhn gar legw umin, ewV an parelqh o ouranoV kai h gh, iwta en h mia keraia ou mh parelqh apo tou nomou ewV an panta genhtai. oV ean oun lush mian twn entolwn toutwn twn elacistwn kai didaxh outwV touV anqrwpouV, elacistoV klhqhsetai en th basileia twn ouranwn: oV d an poihsh kai didaxh, outoV megaV klhqhsetai en th basileia twn ouranwn. legw gar umin oti ean mh perisseush umwn h dikaiosunh pleion twn grammatewn kai farisaiwn, ou mh eiselqhte eiV thn basileian twn ouranwn.

However, in utter contradiction to Jesus Christ's affirmation of the eternal validity of the Torah, as long as Heaven and Earth are extant, Paul blasphemously claims that Christ came to "destroy the barrier... by abolishing in his flesh the Torah." This alone is proof that Paul is an outright Imposter and Liar, the Great Pretender,  as Jesus said "and teaches others to do the same."

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the Law with its commandments and regulations." Ephesians 2:13-15

nuni de en cristw ihsou umeiV oi pote onteV makran egenhqhte egguV en tw aimati tou cristou. autoV gar estin h eirhnh hmwn, o poihsaV ta amfotera en kai to mesotoicon tou fragmou lusaV, thn ecqran, en th sarki autou,

"The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the Torah made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God." Hebrews 7:18-19

aqethsiV men gar ginetai proagoushV entolhV dia to authV asqeneV kai anwfeleV, ouden gar eteleiwsen o nomoV, epeisagwgh de kreittonoV elpidoV, di hV eggizomen tw qew.

It is clear that Paul was creating a new religious perspective, one not spoken of by Christ himself, nor the Prophets before him. This concocted religion was given the name "Christianity" as Paul cast the thought within the minds of his followers that they were all "Little Christs." As warm and fuzzy of a thought as that may well be for Christians and New Agers alike, the term "Christ" is merely the Greek form of the Hebrew "Mashiach."

Unlike the "Christian" concept of "Christ" the Judaic understanding (and the Qur'anic for that matter), maintains that the Mashiach is a specific individual who is sent to accomplish a specific mission. The term "Mashiach" means "The Anointed" from the root "Mashach" (מָשַׁח) meaning "To rub/anoint." It referred specifically to the anointing of the King of the Jews with oil. So to say that Jesus is the "Christ" or "Messiah" means only that he was the King of the Jews.

The parallels between that age and the one currently find ourselves within is striking. In this age we see an illegitimate European government violently seizing control of Judea or Palestine and ruthlessly slaughtering any opposition against them; even if this is just a small child with a rock or even those unfortunate enough to live in the same impoverished towns as someone who dares to resist the occupation of this government on their native land.

The backdrop to which Jesus emerged on the scene of was nearly identical in every way. Like the invading rulers of Benyamin Netanyahu, or Arial Sharon, first century Palestine had the Herodian family. This was the same Herodian family that John the Baptist was murdered by for speaking out against, yet was spoken of by Paul as his "brethren."

"At that time, Herod the tetrarch heard the report concerning Jesus, and said to his servants, 'This is John the Baptist. He is risen from the dead. That is why these powers work in him.' For Herod had laid hold of John, and bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife. For John said to him, It is not lawful for you to have her.' When he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. But when Herod's birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced among them and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatever she should ask. She, being prompted by her mother, said, 'Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.'" Matthew 14:1-8

en ekeinw tw kairw hkousen hrwdhV o tetraarchV thn akohn ihsou, kai eipen toiV paisin autou, outoV estin iwannhV o baptisthV: autoV hgerqh apo twn nekrwn, kai dia touto ai dunameiV energousin en autw. o gar hrwdhV krathsaV ton iwannhn edhsen [auton] kai en fulakh apeqeto dia hrwdiada thn gunaika filippou tou adelfou autou: elegen gar o iwannhV autw, ouk exestin soi ecein authn. kai qelwn auton apokteinai efobhqh ton oclon, oti wV profhthn auton eicon. 6genesioiV de genomenoiV tou hrwdou wrchsato h qugathr thV hrwdiadoV en tw mesw kai hresen tw hrwdh, oqen meq orkou wmologhsen auth dounai o ean aithshtai. h de probibasqeisa upo thV mhtroV authV, doV moi, fhsin, wde epi pinaki thn kefalhn iwannou tou baptistou.

King Agrippa II and his sister Bernice, with whom he was widely believed to be living in an incestuous relationship, visited Caesarea not long after this where they met Paul. The strength of the links between these Herodians and the Romans is indicated by the fact that Bernice later on became the mistress of Titus, second in command to Vespasian at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and later Emperor of Rome. After the fall of the city in 70 CE, and the capture of thousands of its inhabitants, Titus visited Caesarea on the coast and then Caesarea Philippi “...where he stayed a long time exhibiting shows of every kind. Many of the prisoners perished here, some thrown to wild beasts, others forced to meet each other in full-scale battles.” Another 2,500 were similarly dealt with, some being burnt alive, to celebrate his brother's birthday in Caesarea a few months later (Josephus p.376-377).

Unlike John the Baptist, who died for denouncing Herod the tetrarch for marrying his niece, (Matthew 14:3-5) Paul speaks to Agrippa as to a fellow believer. Agrippa, according to the author of Acts, is so moved by Paul's eloquence that he declares “Then Agrippa said unto Paul: 'A little more, and your arguments would make a Christian of me.'” Acts 26:28

o de agrippaV proV ton paulon, en oligw me peiqeiV cristianon poihsai.

Jesus the Revolutionary

John the Baptist and Jesus were dealt with as revolutionaries. Neither one was killed under Roman law for teaching heretical things in the eyes of the P'rushim (Pharisees). Rome was not concerned with new cults or sects cropping up, unless of course those cults and sects were a danger to the power of Rome itself.

Jesus was constantly suspected of such revolutionary activity.

Jesus railed against the power elite, telling parables of foolish rich men and brazenly claiming that "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Matthew 19:24

palin de legw umin, eukopwteron estin kamhlon dia truphmatoV rafidoV dielqein h plousion eiselqein eiV thn basileian tou qeou.

It is not without consequence that Christianity is the world's wealthiest religion. Apart from tax deductions it is almost unheard of for a wealthy Christian to give Charity. The rich among the Christians have even invented a myth of a gate called "The eye of the needle" through which sojourners would pass into Jerusalem. According to aristocratic legend, this gate could "just barely" fit a camel through it. The implications that these rich hypocrites would have you believe is that Jesus really meant it's difficult to remain focused on religion if you are rich,  but you can do it.

This is a lie. First off there was no known gate by this name in Jesus' time. Secondly Jesus said "the eye of A NEEDLE" not of "the" needle. Jesus' message was clear, if you are rich, give your excess to the "poor," the Evionim (אֶבְיוֹנִים), the communal followers of Jesus. For if you do not then know that it is impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

As well, normal everyday people were not generally interrogated as to whether they told people to withhold taxes from the Government. However, Jesus was asked this very thing.

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's (what is due to Caesar), and to God what is God's (what is due to God)." Matthew 22:21

legousin autw, kaisaroV. tote legei autoiV, apodote oun ta kaisaroV kaisari kai ta tou qeou tw qew.

Why would he be asked if he was telling people to violate the law in such a brazen manner, unless there was some credible evidence or information that he in fact WAS doing just that? Luke tells us in Chapter 23 verse 2 that one of the charges leveled against Jesus (even at his trial), was teaching people NOT to pay taxes unto Caesar! Now where on Earth would they have gotten an idea like that, unless this was what they understood from Matthew 22:21?

"And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King."

hrxanto de kathgorein autou legonteV, touton euramen diastrefonta to eqnoV hmwn kai kwluonta forouV kaisari didonai kai legonta eauton criston basilea einai.

To the modern day Republican Christian in a suit and tie, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" means "pay your taxes." However, Jesus said "Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." He was speaking in a manner that would allow the Roman authorities to presume that this was a statement in support of taxes, whilst those "with eyes to see and ears to hear" would in fact understand this to mean that since God was a higher authority than Caesar and God's "Anointed" King of the Jews was the rightful ruler of Judea and not Caesar, then the portion of expendable income (called "khums" in `Arabic) that Jesus asked for from his followers that was "due unto God," and Caesar was in fact due nothing. This is in fact how it was explained to Pilate in Luke 23:2 when he was on trial.

Further evidence that Jesus was a Revolutionary, and not some prophet of conformity and homage to the status quo of Roman occupation, is found in the names the Bible gives of his own closest disciples. When Jesus spoke to the crowds, the Gospel accounts record that they left "amazed" (Matthew 7:28-29). So what made them so amazed? What amazed them was that although Jesus' teachings were peppered with quotes from the Tanakh, and the Books of Enoch (which the majority of his quotes come from), the bulk of his teachings were stated on HIS own authority, and not on the authority of a some Rabbi that he had studied under. The words of Jesus were spoken with authority from God, and he did not mince words about this. He did not say "i think" as Paul did when he spoke WITHOUT the authority of God; as in the following verses:

"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that has obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I think therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be."

peri de twn parqenwn epitaghn kuriou ouk ecw, gnwmhn de didwmi wV hlehmenoV upo kuriou pistoV einai. nomizw oun touto kalon uparcein dia thn enestwsan anagkhn, oti kalon anqrwpw to outwV einai.

"But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God."

makariwtera de estin ean outwV meinh, kata thn emhn gnwmhn, dokw de kagw pneuma qeou ecein.

No, the Sermon on the Mount itself was not what "Amazed" the Jews who listened to it, for this itself was a fairly normal Rabbinical belief found paralleled within the Talmud as well. What "amazed" them was the fact that this man did not "think," rather he KNEW what he was saying was true and he spoke with the authority of the Prophets of old.

There is no evidence that Jesus had studied formally in any advanced schools for scholars, nor did he receive any formal ordination. Some scholars have claimed that Jesus himself spoke rabbinically in his use of parables. However, while the rabbis did teach in parables, these were of a type that nearly always were about a king, with the acts of God compared against those human rulers. Jesus has a few of such parables, but most are drawn from everyday examples of immediacy and normal occurrences to his listeners. He brought the teachings of the scholars "down to earth" so to speak, and he did it without saying "i think," without presenting this as anything but actual fact as inspirer into the Eye of his Heart, by God Himself.

Jesus was however, like the rabbis of the time in calling disciples to follow him and training them to carry on his work. A candidate for rabbinic ordination in Jesus' time did not just find himself a teacher ready to transmit lessons. The candidate became a disciple himself first. Then after having for years waited hand and foot on his master (thus the title "rabbi" meaning "my master" or "my lord"), the disciple himself would gain the authority to teach and be a Rabbi himself. The strong opposition that Jesus faced from the Soferim and P'rushim (Scribes and Pharisees), was not that his teachings themselves were so far removed from the orthodoxy of the day, but rather that he himself had no recognized authority with which to preach and teach such things. It is for this reason that he was constantly spied on by the P'rushim and why his words were continuously scrutinized by the scholars of the Soferim and P'rushim.

As for those who heeded his words and became his Talmidim or "Disciples," the Bible tells us that they were from such groups as the "Sikkari" (Iscariot), and the Zealots.

"Since the days of John the Baptist until now, the Men of Violence have not ceased taking the Kingdom of Heaven by storm/violence." Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16

apo de twn hmerwn iwannou tou baptistou ewV arti h basileia twn ouranwn biazetai, kai biastai arpazousin authn.

Interestingly, there is nothing within the context of this quote that is disparaging to the means of militarily ushering the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. The context of this chapters is relevant to John the Baptist and the "Men of Violence" who had been ushering in the "Kingdom of Heaven" by force after John was taken to prison. Throughout this chapter Jesus explains this; explains that should people accept it, and explains that John was in fact the prophesied Elijah to come before the Day of the Wrath of YHWH. Yet what is absent is his criticism of those "Men of Violence" who waged their Zealot Revolution in the absence of their Teacher, their Rabbi John.

"This reference to the 'Men of Violence', also found in the Damascus Document and the Habakkuk Pesher at Qumran, is normally interpreted to mean what in other contexts goes by the name of 'Zealots' or 'Sicarri.'"

Robert Eisenman, "James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls" referencing CCD 9.37 iQpHab 2.6-21, 8.11, 4QPs 37 2.17 and 4.10

In the recent book "The Terrorist Recognition Handbook" the author Malcolm W. Nance states in chapter 6 that the Sikkari were a noted Terrorist organizations of Jesus' day.

"Groups such as the Zealots and Sicari in biblical Palestine, and the Assassins of eleventh-century Persia, are often cited as historical terrorists."

How strange then, that this supposed pacifist - who the Church insinuates told everyone to mind the Roman occupational government, and to never, ever fight, and certainly never, ever kill someone in any sort of Revolutionary Uprising - came to have such "terrorists" as his students?

In the "Marine Corps Combat Development Command: Introduction to Terrorism"

"An early example (about A.D. 100) of terrorism by a resistance group in opposition to the established rule involves the Siccari (dagger men). The Sicarri were extremists who belonged to the highly organized Hebrew religious sect known as the Zealots. They were an aggressive fundamentalist and nationalist organization that fought Roman occupation. A favored tactic was to kill Romans and their Jewish collaborators in public places where they were certain to attract attention."

The name "Zealot" was a broad brush with which all the rebel groups, centered in Galilee, from 6 C.E. until the War with Rome, were called by. Josephus describes the Zealots as the "Fourth Philosophy" of Judaism at that time. He says that in many ways they were like the Pharisees except for their slogan "no ruler but God." They refused to live under Roman rule and some of their adherents, such as the urban Sikkari of Jerusalem were known to attempt to bring about this liberation from Roman occupation by any means necessary.

To the average Christian this may seem shocking. Here we see the United States Marines as well as many mainstream books on Terrorism sighting the group which the Disciples of Jesus belonged to as terrorists. However, to one versed in Scripture this should come as no surprise at all. Though nearly every Christian in the West is quick to denounce the Palestinian "Suicide Bombers" as the most heinous of murderers and "terrorists," we see the EXACT SAME religiously motivated killing of unarmed combatants GLORIFIED in the Tanakh!

"It happened, when their hearts were merry, that they said, Call for Shimshon (Samson), that he may make us sport. They called for Shimshon out of the prison; and he made sport before them. They set him between the pillars: and Shimshon said to the boy who held him by the hand, Allow me that I may feel the pillars whereupon the house rests, that I may lean on them. Now the house was full of men and women; and all lords of the P'lishtim (Philistines) were there; and there were on the roof about three thousand men and women, who saw while Shimshon made sport. Shimshon called to YHWH, and said, 'Adonai YHWH, remember me, Please, and strengthen me, Please, only this once, Elohim, that I may be at once avenged of the P'lishtim for my two eyes.' Shimshon took hold of the two middle pillars on which the house rested, and leaned on them, the one with his right hand, and the other with his left. Shimshon said, 'Let me die with the P'lishtim.' He bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell on lords, and on all the people who were therein. So the dead that he killed at his death were more than those who he killed in his life.  Then his brothers and all the house of his father came down, and took him, and brought him up, and buried him between Tzorah and Eshtaol in the burial site of Manoah his father. He judged Yisrael twenty years." Shoftim (Judges) 16:25-31

וַיְהִי, כי טוב (כְּטוֹב) לִבָּם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, קִרְאוּ לְשִׁמְשׁוֹן וִישַׂחֶק-לָנוּ; וַיִּקְרְאוּ לְשִׁמְשׁוֹן מִבֵּית האסירים (הָאֲסוּרִים), וַיְצַחֵק לִפְנֵיהֶם, וַיַּעֲמִידוּ אוֹתוֹ, בֵּין הָעַמּוּדִים. וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְשׁוֹן אֶל-הַנַּעַר הַמַּחֲזִיק בְּיָדוֹ, הַנִּיחָה אוֹתִי, והימשני (וַהֲמִישֵׁנִי) אֶת-הָעַמֻּדִים, אֲשֶׁר הַבַּיִת נָכוֹן עֲלֵיהֶם; וְאֶשָּׁעֵן, עֲלֵיהֶם. וְהַבַּיִת, מָלֵא הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהַנָּשִׁים, וְשָׁמָּה, כֹּל סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים; וְעַל-הַגָּג, כִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה, הָרֹאִים, בִּשְׂחוֹק שִׁמְשׁוֹן. וַיִּקְרָא שִׁמְשׁוֹן אֶל-יְהוָה, וַיֹּאמַר: אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה זָכְרֵנִי נָא וְחַזְּקֵנִי נָא אַךְ הַפַּעַם הַזֶּה, הָאֱלֹהִים, וְאִנָּקְמָה נְקַם-אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵי עֵינַי, מִפְּלִשְׁתִּים. וַיִּלְפֹּת שִׁמְשׁוֹן אֶת-שְׁנֵי עַמּוּדֵי הַתָּוֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר הַבַּיִת נָכוֹן עֲלֵיהֶם, וַיִּסָּמֵךְ, עֲלֵיהֶם--אֶחָד בִּימִינוֹ, וְאֶחָד בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְשׁוֹן, תָּמוֹת נַפְשִׁי עִם-פְּלִשְׁתִּים, וַיֵּט בְּכֹחַ, וַיִּפֹּל הַבַּיִת עַל-הַסְּרָנִים וְעַל-כָּל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ; וַיִּהְיוּ הַמֵּתִים, אֲשֶׁר הֵמִית בְּמוֹתוֹ, רַבִּים, מֵאֲשֶׁר הֵמִית בְּחַיָּיו.וַיֵּרְדוּ אֶחָיו וְכָל-בֵּית אָבִיהוּ, וַיִּשְׂאוּ אֹתוֹ, וַיַּעֲלוּ וַיִּקְבְּרוּ אוֹתוֹ בֵּין צָרְעָה וּבֵין אֶשְׁתָּאֹל, בְּקֶבֶר מָנוֹחַ אָבִיו; וְהוּא שָׁפַט אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה. 

Notice, it is said therein that "the house was full of men and women." It says "three thousands in all." That is more victims than those who died in the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001!

As well, we are told that a "boy who held him by the hand" set him between the pillars. That means that the great suicide/homicide martyr Shimshon knowingly killed a little boy and civilians in an effort to kill the lords of the P'lishtim. This is not from the Qur'an which says nothing of this kind, but rather from the Bible!

The traditionally indoctrinated Christians would say "But Jesus said to turn the other cheek and forgive thy brother." However, such quotes can only be understood in the context of his other claims wherein he instructed his Disciples to arm themselves with lethal weapons, and when he himself violently drove out the money changers and merchants from the Temple with a whip made of cords.

"In the temple (Jesus) found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the moneychangers at their business. And making a whip of cord, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple, and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and over-turned their tables." John 2:14-15

kai euren en tw ierw touV pwlountaV boaV kai probata kai peristeraV kai touV kermatistaV kaqhmenouV, kai poihsaV fragellion ek scoiniwn pantaV exebalen ek tou ierou, ta te probata kai touV boaV, kai twn kollubistwn execeen to kerma kai taV trapezaV anetreyen,

It says he "drove them out." When you "drive out" cattle or horses, you do so by whipping them. If you turned over tables you would be restrained unless of course you had a weapon and were coercing individuals by force to leave.

The fact of the matter is that if you saw a man cracking a whip and going into your church turning over the pulpit and the aisles of pews, you would think that he had obviously come to do you harm. That would be the intention of him arming himself with a weapon. If you entertain the notion that he did not come with that intention, (but armed himself anyway), then you are saying he was willfully deceiving people which is a sin. As it is written:

"Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another." Leviticus 19:11

לֹא, תִּגְנֹבוּ; וְלֹא תְכַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּרוּ, אִישׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ

Anyone who has ever picked up a whip knows that one cannot just yield such a weapon with mastery without having practiced. Had Jesus never trained with such a weapon then he would have made a complete fool out of himself in the Temple that day. He was going around TURNING OVER the tables, disrupting business, TERRORIZING; damaging the merchandise, the tables and scattering the money of these disbelievers. He TERRIFIED them so much that they were sent running for their lives from this man who was armed with a whip.

The Revolutionary activities of Jesus do not end there. No, rather than telling his disciples to sell their clothing and give the money to feed the poor, he told them to sell their clothing and by lethal weapons with which to arm themselves!

"Think not that I have come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

mh nomishte oti hlqon balein eirhnhn epi thn ghn: ouk hlqon balein eirhnhn alla macairan.

"Do you suppose that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, No! But rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." Luke 12:51

dokeite oti eirhnhn paregenomhn dounai en th gh; ouci, legw umin, all h diamerismon.

"He that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36

eipen de autoiV, alla nun o ecwn ballantion aratw, omoiwV kai phran, kai o mh ecwn pwlhsatw to imation autou kai agorasatw macairan.

Tacitus in his "Histories" clearly portrays the early pre-Christian followers of Jesus as a terrorist movement. In this work, he states that the members of this movement were killed for allegedly committing acts of arson starting the famous fire during the reign of Nero in 64 C.E. The historian Sutonius in his history of the emperor Claudius mentions a group he termed "impulsore chresto" (messianic insurgents) who had caused rioting in Rome. Claudius redeployed thousands of Roman troops in several legions to guard facilities like the port at Ostia from arson and sabotage.

The Sikkari Zealot Movement

The surname "Iscariot" given to Judas by the authors of the Canonical Gospels is extremely curious. Some have guessed that this is the name of some unknown city. However, since such a city has never been identified this hypothesis is untenable. Other more fringe scholars have hypothesized that this might be an acronym of sorts for "Ish she hischir auto" meaning "the man who hired him out." Again, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that this would be anything other than a far fetched grasping for straws by the Christian Church which is devoid of such historical answers on its own scriptures.

The most popularly accepted delineation of the meaning of this cognomen is "Sicarious" - the very name that the famed Jewish historian Josephus uses for this "Fourth Philosophy" of "Innovators" which he uses absolutely interchangeably with the "Zealot Movement." That is, in the garbled Greek text, "Judas the Sicarious," not "Iscariot." All that has happened is that the first "i" and "s" have been reversed and the last "i" has been replaced with a "t." These sorts of reversals in translation occur throughout the Greek Bible, as we see in names like "Cleophas" as well as "Alphaeus, "Lebbaeus" and more than any other "Oblias" we is applied to James. As well, the name James comes from the original Hebrew "Ya'aqov" and is corrupted into the Greek "Jacobus," then morphing into the Latin "Jacimus," from which "James" emerged.

In the absence of any place name, or of any remotely similar word to "Iscariot," it seems not only acceptable, but necessary that we understand "Iscariot" to be a rendition of "Sicarious." Again, this term "Sicarious" was the term used by Josephus to speak of the Zealot party (of which the Gospels tell us many of Jesus' Disciples were already from).

The militant nature of Jesus was carefully but not completely hidden by Church censors who redacted the New Testament. Several references are left that document conclusively that Jesus was not entirely the meek Lamb of God portrayed in the Gospels, but a militant separatist dedicated to evicting the Romans and installing himself as the King of Judea. The most striking references are to those close followers of his whom were from Zealot factions.

According to the Bible, at least six of the twelve disciples are known to have been Zealots. Jesus, who had come to reaffirm and not to reject the teaching of Moses, issued the appeal: "Whosoever is zealous for the Law and maintains the Covenant let him come forth after me." Makkabim Alef 2:27-31

As noted, by the time a word has been translated from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek, Latin, or some other vernacular language, it has become completely divorced from its original meaning and context. For instance, the figure of "Simon Zelotes," who appears in the Gospel of Luke and in Acts is obviously a translation of "zealot," therefore, "Simon the Zealot." Even attempts in later translations such as the King James reveal this individual as a militant where in Matthew and Mark he is referred to as Simon the "Canaanite." This term is a corruption of the Aramaic "qannai," rendered into the Greek as "kananaios," meaning simply one who is "Zealous for God." Simon Bar Jonas referred to in Matthew and Luke is simply a Greek version of the Aramaic "bar yonnei" which means "empty ones" and refers to lawless revolutionaries who are condemned in Talmud Gittin 56A for opposing the Pharisees and causing the people to initiate their disastrous revolt against Rome.

The most famous of the many "Simons" populating the Bible is Simon Peter. Peter is another word for Petra or rock. Despite the peaceful "fisherman" image concocted in the Gospels, the reality portrayed in this story of "The Rock" is more militant. Peter's name that Jesus calls him is "Bar Jonah" in Matthew 16:17, another corruption of the bar yonnei of Gittin 56A. The fact that the "rock" upon which Jesus founded his church was a "lawless" terrorist makes the implications of the church's early history very different indeed, a problem that Church historians have been covering up ever since.

The lost "Gospel of Peter" was found in a Monk's tomb 1884 and contains an account of disciples suspected of some very strange crimes. Peter admits therein to being a wanted criminal and to plotting arson: "And I and my companions were grieved; and being wounded in mind we hid ourselves: for we were being sought for by them as malefactors, and as wishing to set fire to the temple"

Lost Books, p. 282

Within this context we can understand the words of Jesus regarding the Temple's destruction: "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See you not all these things? Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Matthew 24:1-2

kai exelqwn o ihsouV apo tou ierou eporeueto, kai proshlqon oi maqhtai autou epideixai autw taV oikodomaV tou ierou: o de apokriqeiV eipen autoiV, ou blepete tauta panta; amhn legw umin, ou mh afeqh wde liqoV epi liqon oV ou kataluqhsetai.

The attempt to distance Jesus from the Zealots was made by the Church during the redaction and censorship of the Christian Bible that came during the decades following the Jewish revolt against Rome. Church leaders found it necessary to make Jesus appear to be pro-Roman and to blame the Jews for the crucifixion. This ignored the clear fact that Judas and Simon Peter were both Zealots (as were at least half of his Inner Circle of 12), and that Jesus told his followers that he had come not to bring peace but the sword.

Moreover, it is clear from the reading of the accounts at the Garden of Gethsemane that Peter came prepared to fight violently to defend his Rabbi, should the Centurions, the Police of that day have come to arrest him. This reveals the mind set and the historical context within which the Disciples themselves were being instructed by Jesus. Not only had this man, their leader, told them to see whatever they had to in order to obtain weapons, but he also apparently had never discouraged killing the enforcers of the Roman police state!

"Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to his disciples, “Sit here, while I go there and pray.” He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and severely troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here, and watch with me.” Matthew 26:36-38

tote ercetai met autwn o ihsouV eiV cwrion legomenon geqshmani, kai legei toiV maqhtaiV, kaqisate autou ewV [ou] apelqwn ekei proseuxwmai. kai paralabwn ton petron kai touV duo uiouV zebedaiou hrxato lupeisqai kai adhmonein. tote legei autoiV, perilupoV estin h yuch mou ewV qanatou: meinate wde kai grhgoreite met emou.

In verses 40 and 41 the Disciples are told watch again: "He came to the disciples, and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, 'What, couldn’t you watch with me for one hour? Watch and pray, that you don’t enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.'”

kai ercetai proV touV maqhtaV kai euriskei autouV kaqeudontaV, kai legei tw petrw, outwV ouk iscusate mian wran grhgorhsai met emou; grhgoreite kai proseucesqe, ina mh eiselqhte eiV peirasmon: to men pneuma proqumon h de sarx asqenhV.

What exactly was being "watched" for? Clearly we see from the Canonical texts that there was no apparition that manifested, there was no Chariot of Fire that descended from the sky with Angels aboard it. What were they watching for other than the Centurions, in other words the Police who were apparently in pursuit of them (as they were in Peter's Gospel account)? These Centurions were the ONLY things to appear there in the Garden. So we see undeniably from the text that Jesus told his Disciples to keep watch for the police, for the authorities of Rome.

In verse 55 Jesus asks them why they came with such weapons drawn upon him, as a multitude with clubs and swords. He asks them if they thought him to be a robber. Interestingly, however, he does not say "Have you come out as against a REVOLUTIONARY." Thus, as Revolutionaries are wont to do, he did not view Revolutionary activity as truly CRIMINAL activity; though it was clear that these authorities had come after him for their suspicions of "illegal activity" (which is later confirmed during the trial before Pilate).

"In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, 'Have you come out as against a robber with swords and clubs to seize me? I sat daily in the temple teaching, and you didn’t arrest me."

en ekeinh th wra eipen o ihsouV toiV ocloiV, wV epi lhsthn exhlqate meta macairwn kai xulwn sullabein me; kaq hmeran en tw ierw ekaqezomhn didaskwn kai ouk ekrathsate me.

When the police, the Centurions arrived to where they were holding out, what did Peter do? He immediately attacked them. No matter how disparaging the odds, Peter was planning on going out fighting, and he did so without hesitation to evaluate the morality of these actions (which we can only conclude he believed, as did the rest of the Disciples, were completely morally justified actions). Verse 51 says: "Behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear."

kai idou eiV twn meta ihsou ekteinaV thn ceira apespasen thn macairan autou kai pataxaV ton doulon tou arcierewV afeilen autou to wtion.

According to John 18:10, this was Peter himself who attacked. So this begs the question, how (and more importantly WHY), did Peter have such skillful precision with the blade that he could lunge at a trained Centurion and cut off his ear in one clean swipe? While it is likely that he was going for the man's head, this mob of arresting agents of the state had come prepared for a major upheaval, yet this man was clearly impotent to prevent Peter from getting inside his defense, and the other Centurions were incapable of incapacitating "the Rock" and bringing him in with Jesus.

This indicates that logically the Disciples not only sold what they had to purchase weapons (as instructed by their Rabbi Jesus), but also that they trained for battle in the use of these weapons. Remember that Peter was not a former member of any military or the like, he was a mere fisherman by day. That means that in his off time he must have been preparing for the very Apocalyptic battle described and anticipated in the Dead Sea Scrolls of his contemporaries at Qumran.

Regarding the question of Judas' betrayal of Jesus, it can be seen in the feelings of betrayal that Judas "Sikkari" felt, that Judas did not feel Jesus was moving in as direct a manner as he would have liked for the overthrow of the Pax Romana. What can be clearly inferred from this is the fact that while Jesus' approach differed from that of Judas who wanted all out war in the streets instantly, Jesus himself is never recorded as telling Judas that he should no longer be "Sikkari," nor that any of his other Disciples would never be Zealots. He never spoke a discouraging word about the Revolutionaries of that day, which is beyond significant when one considers that his Disciples themselves were referred to by name as these very same Revolutionaries.

The Pagan Origins of Christianity and the Abolition of the Torah

In addition to pulling the proverbial wool over the eyes of the masses of unsuspecting Christians regarding the Revolutionary nature of Jesus Christ and his disciples, the Church has continued - virtually uncontested for millennia - the myth of the "Trinity" propagated by Paul. Beyond this is the entire PAGAN origin of the Paulian mythology, centered around the amorphous "Christ" who he speaks often about, yet himself never relays any BIOGRAPHICAL information of.

Nearly every aspect of the Paulian myth of Christianity is pagan in its origin. Tarsus, the city from which Paul admits he came from was the physical entrance of the mythized "Gates of Hades." Tarsus was also the center of worship for the "god" named "Hades." Interestingly Paul claimed his own original name was "Sha'ul" which is spell the exact same way in Hebrew (as Hebrew in that age did not have the diacritical vowel markings that it now has), as the word "Sheol" (שְׁאוֹל), meaning simply the Netherworld. It is not synonymous with "Hell" which is "Geyhenum" (גֵּיהִנֹּם) or the "Pit." The name "Sheol" (שְׁאוֹל) and "Sha'ul" (שָׁאוּל) or "Saul" as English renders it, are identical terms in Hebrew just like the Greek for the place named "Hades" to which Tarsus was the reported entrance, and the name of the so-called "god" of that place who was also named "Hades."

On the subject of Paul being caught red handed eating food that was left sacrificed to the pagan idols of Tarsus, Paul writes: "Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but charity edifies."

peri de twn eidwloqutwn, oidamen oti panteV gnwsin ecomen. h gnwsiV fusioi, h de agaph oikodomei.

"Edifies?" Could Paul actually have been suggesting that he was the "better man" than James and the Jerusalem Community because he ate flesh sacrificed to pagan, polytheistic idols? Scholastically there is virtually unanimous agreement that this was in fact what Paul was saying. So while Jesus Christ told us that not one letter of the Torah would pass away, and that he had come to fulfill, rather than to abolish the Torah, Paul was busy openly mocking the Torah by eating the flesh of animals killed in a non-Kosher manner and sacrificed to pagan false-gods.

Are there any Christians today who would openly eat the flesh of an animal sacrificed to Satan or to any of pantheon of Greek "gods" and "goddesses?" Christians will immediately rise to Paul's defense and at the same time they refuse flesh sacrificed to the Greek "god" called by the name "Hades." Why? According to Paul it is only "lack of faith" that would cause one to abstain from the devil's meal!

In Paul's defense, Christians will often refer to Paul speaking favorably about a "moral law" in Romans chapter 7. However, speaking about a MORAL "law" (that is, morality as opposed to complete anarchy), is FAR different than Jesus speaking about the TORAH AND NEVI'IM. When the translation of Matthew 5:17-20 says "The Law and the Prophets" it is referring to what comprised the bulk of the Tanakh that Jews followed and revered. Jesus came teaching from his own authority and was not formally trained as a Rabbi. Thus the Soferim and P'rushim feared (and accused) him of bringing innovation. He clarified that he had NOT come to get rid of even one of the 613 Mitzvot and that he did not come to abolish the Torah and Nevi'im.

Paul on the other hand says: "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless," Paul claimed Jesus (as) was "abolishing in his flesh the Law with its commandments and regulations." Notice he at no time says "He abolished some specifically JEWISH commandments and regulations." He says that Jesus abolished THE LAW entirely WITH ITS commandments and regulations.

Soon after Paul's affirmation of some amorphous "moral law" in Chapter 7, he says in Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end (teloV, "telos" meaning literally "end" or "termination") of the Law for righteousness to every one that believes."

teloV gar nomou cristoV eiV dikaiosunhn panti tw pisteuonti.

According to Romans 10:9 Paul says that no matter what: "If you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved."

oti ean omologhshV en tw stomati sou kurion ihsoun, kai pisteushV en th kardia sou oti o qeoV auton hgeiren ek nekrwn, swqhsh:

That is NO MATTER WHAT, if you are "consenting" to murder like Paul; if you admit to "robbing the churches" as Paul did; if someone says of you that you are a god and you NEVER go on record denying it; and it is not denied by your close disciple writing your biographical account (Luke); if you pride yourself on being a "crafty fellow" and taking people in "by deceit," (all of these things Paul did), then according to Paul none of this matters. You need no Torah, no Mitzvot, no nothing. Only belief in this borrowed pagan mythology of a resurrected "God-Man" who died on the cross as expiation for YOUR sins. What a "liberating" belief system that conveniently was exactly what the LAWLESS Romans wanted to hear.

IF this claim was true then Christ was a LIAR when he told the Jews (his own people) that he came not to abolish the Torah and Nevi'im.

John, Jesus, James and the entire Qumran Community did not teach the nonsense of Christianity, they came teaching ISLAM meaning SUBMISSION [to God]. As it is written in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

"For it is through the spirit of true counsel concerning the ways of man that all his sins shall be expiated... He shall be cleansed from all his sins by the spirit of holiness... and his iniquity shall be expiated by the spirit of uprightness and humility. And when his flesh is sprinkled with purifying water and sanctified by cleansing water, it shall be made clean by the humble SUBMISSION of his soul to all the precepts of El (God)." 1QS III, 6-9

Paul knew good and well that the Torah applied to ANY non-Jew who wished to follow the teachings of Jesus or the Prophets of the Children of Israel before him. That is why he makes the admission:

"But now we are delivered from the Law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Romans 7:6

nuni de kathrghqhmen apo tou nomou, apoqanonteV en w kateicomeqa, wste douleuein hmaV en kainothti pneumatoV kai ou palaiothti grammatoV.

He is admitting that ALL were bound by the Law, and unlike "Hebrews" the Book of Romans was addressed - rather "marketed" - towards the Romans (hence its name). So what Paul was doing was following behind James and the Jerusalem community and undoing their work. They were telling the Romans that if they want to follow Jesus then that is fine, but they must follow the Torah. They must not eat flesh sacrificed to Satanic false-gods, nor believe in blood-atonement for sins, as quoted throughout the Nevi'im and in the Community Rule of the Dead Sea Scrolls:

"They shall atone for guilt rebellion and for sins of unfaithfulness that they may obtain loving-kindness for the Land without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice. And prayer rightly offered shall be as an acceptable fragrance of righteousness and perfection of way as a delectable free-will offering." 1QS IX.5

Furthermore, anyone wishing to convert from Hellenism, paganism, to the "SUBMISSION" taught by John, Jesus, James and Qumran must cut the foreskin off of their son's penis' after a week of life and follow all of the other regulations that God most certainly did not reveal to Moses (as) in vain. More specifically to the teachings of John, Jesus, James and the Qumran Community, they must not drink alcohol nor eat animal flesh. THIS is why these are theme's that Paul incessantly attacks about "those who eat only vegetables" (Romans 14:2), who three verses later are criticized for honoring the Sabbath. The Qumran Community and their "Righteous Teachers" John and then James taught that: "No man shall defile himself by eating any live creature or creeping thing, from the larvae of bees to all creature which creep in the water." CD XII, 12-13

"The Customs of the Pagans"

Everything which Paul brought into Christianity to synthesize with the story of Jesus was pagan. It is becoming a more and more well known fact that December 25th was not the birthday of Jesus Christ. Similarly, nearly every aspect of the Christmas celebration is pagan. Having a tree decorated for this holiday was even denounced in the Bible. The Prophet Jeremiah stated in chapter 10, verses 1-2:

"Hear the word which YHWH speaks unto you, O house of Yisrael; Thus says YHWH: Learn not the way of the nations, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the nations are dismayed at them. For the customs of the pagans (goyim) are vanity; for it is but a tree which one cuts out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold, they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."

שִׁמְעוּ אֶת-הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה עֲלֵיכֶם--בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל. כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה, אֶל-דֶּרֶךְ הַגּוֹיִם אַל-תִּלְמָדוּ, וּמֵאֹתוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם, אַל-תֵּחָתּוּ: כִּי-יֵחַתּוּ הַגּוֹיִם, מֵהֵמָּה. כִּי-חֻקּוֹת הָעַמִּים, הֶבֶל הוּא: כִּי-עֵץ מִיַּעַר כְּרָתוֹ, מַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵי-חָרָשׁ בַּמַּעֲצָד. בְּכֶסֶף וּבְזָהָב, יְיַפֵּהוּ; בְּמַסְמְרוֹת וּבְמַקָּבוֹת יְחַזְּקוּם, וְלוֹא יָפִיק.

Could this verse be any more specific? We are told that the customs of the pagan nations are like a tree that is cut down, fastened in the house and decorated with gold and silver. How strange that his is the prevalent theme around which Christmas is centered.

So what is the connection between Christianity and these sorts of pagan customs? The Judeo-Christian religions were founded in a region of the world where savior religions existed for THOUSANDS of years. Much of the symbolism and many of the stories in the Bible may be traced to earlier myths of the Persians, Egyptians, and other people from the East. Under Constantine when the Roman Empire adopted Christianity the festivals and stories were further infused with the traditions of the earlier Roman pagan religion. Constantine himself worshipped both Jesus and the sun god Sol Invitus, the Romanized version of "Mithra," until he died. It is, therefore, crucial to the proper understanding of the Bible to understand the influence that these ancient religions had on the Hellenistic Christian authors of MOST of the "New Testament"  when they were forming what was to become the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The influence of Mithraism on Christian mythology is even more pronounced. Mithra, a character already ancient by the birth of Jesus, appears to be one of the models for the later mysticizing of Jesus and his ministry. It is apparent that as each of the canonical gospels was written, more and more mystery and magic was accredited to Jesus. It is these additions to the story, added many years after his death, that borrow heavily from the earlier religions already well established in the East. The story and role of Mithra is very similar to that of Jesus. The Zoroastrian religion centered on the struggle of Order against Chaos, Light against Dark. In this battle the Sun-god was a powerful ally for the side of light. Mithra was the son of the Sun-god sent to Earth to aid in this battle against evil and to be the savior of the world.

The Mithraic festival in celebration of Mithra's birth was held on December 25, the recognized date of Jesus' birth. Long before Christmas was celebrated, December 25th in the Roman world was the Natalis Solis Invicti, the birthday of the Unconquerable Sun. This feast, which took place just after the winter solstice, was in honor of Sol Invitus who was nothing more than the Roman adaptation of Mithra. As well, Mithra was said to have been born in a cave or grotto where shepherds attended him and gave him gifts. This brings to mind much of the story of Jesus' birth in a cavern stable.

A typical verse used in a Mithraic service is "Be of good cheer, sacred band of Initiates, your God has risen from the dead. His pains and sufferings shall be your salvation." It is clear that many of the phrases used by Paul seem to draw heavily upon the terminology and style of the Mithraic religion. Another example of this borrowing of Mithraic symbolism is when Paul says "They drink from that spiritual rock and that rock is Christ" (I Corinthians 10:4). Mithra was sometimes termed "the god out of the rock" and Mithraic services were often held in caves. In fact the Vatican Hill in Rome was already a sacred site to Mithra. Many Mithraic artifacts have been found there. This should not be surprising when it is realized that Mithraism was introduced to the Roman empire around 70 BCE - over 350 years before Christianity was adopted as the official state religion - and that Tarsus, (the home of Paul), was one of the chief centers of Mithra worship in the ancient world.

In debating on the issue of the pagan origins of Christianity, the early Church historian Origin relayed: "We [Christians] are not the only persons who have recourse to miraculous narratives of this kind."

That is, his pagan opponent Celsus had denounced Christianity on many counts regarding the miraculous narratives of the nativity and purported death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Christianity's defense Origin admits clearly that these themes WERE NOT unique to Christianity.

The same second century Church Father Origen says of Jesus' virgin birth, that a number of Pagan gods were born of virgins: Danae, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope. The stories about these Gods are "ancient," says Origin, but unlike the story of Jesus' virgin birth, only fables.

Origin, Against Celsus 1, 37

According to one story, the Roman Emperor Augustus' mother was worshipping in the temple of Apollo when she fell asleep and was impregnated by the god Apollo.

Suetonius Lives of the Caesars: Augustus 94

In Justin Martyr's "First Apology" it was written about Jesus: "He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of Perseus."

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 22

Other examples of virgin born "god-men" include but are not limited to Krishna being born of the virgin Devaki; the "Savior" Dionysus being born of the virgin Semele. As well, Guatama Siddharttha, the Buddha was supposedly born of a virgin. The old Teutonic goddess Hertha was a virgin impregnated by the "heavenly Spirit" and bore a son. The Scandinavian Frigga was impregnated by the "All-Father" Odin and bore Balder, the healer and savior of mankind.

The cult that evolved around Maryam the Mother of Jesus and the unBiblical Catholic dogma of the "perpetual virginity" (despite having several other children besides Jesus), is a direct result of such pagan mythological influence.

The Alleged Divinity of Christ is Unbiblical

The Gospel accounts make it abundantly clear that Jesus was a man; who  hungered, thirsted, slept, grew weary and so on and so forth. Jesus is referred to therein several times as a man, and over fifty times as the "Son of Man." B'midbar (Numbers) 23:19 states explicitly that YHWH said:

"God (El) is not a man (ish) that He should lie; nor the 'son of man/Adam' (a Hebrew term meaning 'human being' as all humans are the sons of Adam) , that He should repent: when He has said, will He not do it? Or when He has spoken, will He not make it good?"

לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב, וּבֶן-אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם; הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, וְדִבֶּר וְלֹא יְקִימֶנָּה.

"Do not rely on princes nor in the Son of Man, for he holds no salvation. His breath/spirit (ruach) goes forth, he returns to his dust; in that very day his thoughts perish. Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in YHWH Elohayu (his God)," Tehilim (Psalms) 146:3-5

אַל-תִּבְטְחוּ בִנְדִיבִים -- בְּבֶן-אָדָם, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תְשׁוּעָה תֵּצֵא רוּחוֹ, יָשֻׁב לְאַדְמָתוֹ; בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, אָבְדוּ עֶשְׁתֹּנֹתָיו. אַשְׁרֵי--שֶׁאֵל יַעֲקֹב בְּעֶזְרוֹ: שִׂבְרוֹ, עַל-יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו.

"I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the Holy One in the midst of you: and I will not enter into the city." Hoshea (Hosea) 11:9

לֹא אֶעֱשֶׂה חֲרוֹן אַפִּי, לֹא אָשׁוּב לְשַׁחֵת אֶפְרָיִם: כִּי אֵל אָנֹכִי, וְלֹא-אִישׁ--בְּקִרְבְּךָ קָדוֹשׁ, וְלֹא אָבוֹא בְּעִיר.

My Christian friends, is God a man or is He not? Is he "the Son of Man" or is He not? Jesus himself NEVER once said "i am God" so where else (besides from Paul), could this contradictory notion come from? Certainly God would not tell His prophets that He is NOT "a man" and NOT the "Son of Man" and then actually end up being a man who was called over fifty times in the Bible "the Son of Man." Is God trying to trick or confuse us?

There can be no doubt that the mouth of Jesus is not where these Pagan concepts of a "God-Man" or of "Trinity" originated. This quote of "i am God" cannot be found in one single verse of the canonical Gospels. We know that the canonical Gospels themselves are corrupted. How do we know? Like the book of Jeremiah's damnation of the Torah as altered and no longer "the Torah of Moses," the Gospel damns any belief in its lack of corruption when it states the following blatant contradiction: Matthew 27:9,10 makes reference to Jeremiah, but this reference actually appears in Zechariah 11:12,13.

"Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and the used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me.'" Matthew 27:9,10

tote eplhrwqh to rhqen dia ieremiou tou profhtou legontoV, kai elabon ta triakonta arguria, thn timhn tou tetimhmenou on etimhsanto apo uiwn israhl, kai edwkan auta eiV ton agron tou keramewV, kaqa sunetaxen moi kurioV.

"I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And YHWH said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of YHWH to the potter" Z'khariyah (Zechariah) 11:12,13

וָאֹמַר אֲלֵיהֶם, אִם-טוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם הָבוּ שְׂכָרִי--וְאִם-לֹא חֲדָלוּ; וַיִּשְׁקְלוּ אֶת-שְׂכָרִי, שְׁלֹשִׁים כָּסֶף. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלַי, הַשְׁלִיכֵהוּ אֶל-הַיּוֹצֵר, אֶדֶר הַיְקָר, אֲשֶׁר יָקַרְתִּי מֵעֲלֵיהֶם; וָאֶקְחָה שְׁלֹשִׁים הַכֶּסֶף, וָאַשְׁלִיךְ אֹתוֹ בֵּית יְהוָה אֶל-הַיּוֹצֵר.

Some Christians have vainly claimed that this reference is because the latter portion of the Book of Z'khariyah was written by Yirmiyah (Jeremiah). This is UTTER NONSENSE! No JEWISH scholar teaches such things, nor had it EVER been taught. As you can see from any historical analysis of the Book of Z'khariyah, the different sections are believed to be FIRST by Z'khariyah, and the last several chapters to be LATER ranging from in the 300's to 250 C.E.!

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Book of Z'khariyah is the Book of Z'khariyah! First of all, there is no reason to presume that Z'khariyah was inspired to write the entire book at the same time, nor is there any reason that the tone would be the same for both sections he was inspired to write. This sort of INSPIRED Scripture is not the same as DICTATED Revelation by an Angel. Thus, it is absolutely tenable to imagine that the same author could be Divinely Inspired at different times and have varying tones, figures of speech and what not. Later by one of their disciples or students (in this case of Z'khariyah), whether before or after their deaths, their writings were likely compiled into one text, which was then named after them.

What we CAN be certain of is that Yirmiyahu did not live in EITHER time period of 520 to 518 B.C.E. when the first 8 to 11 chapters of Z'khariyah date, nor in 300 C.E. when SOME believe another author may have had his hand in making additions to the text.

Instead, Yirmiyahu's prophetic career ranged from between 626-586 B.C.E. The LATTER chapters of Z'khariyah are thought by all legitimate scholars who think they are from a source other than Z'khariyah to be LATER NOT EARLIER than Z'khariyah. That is, they are believed to be LATER additions!

The ONLY people who "think" otherwise are CHRISTIANS who are FORCED to come up with such a concocted explanation to vainly attempt to demonstrate that the Gospels are not corrupted version of the words of Christ! Christian scholars would have NO IDEA who wrote this book since it was written LONG before ANY of them had any interest in the Tanakh. Again, Jews have ALWAYS maintained that Z'khariyah wrote the ENTIRE book of Z'khariyah, but NEVER that Yirimiyahu did.

"The Jewish Encyclopedia" states under the heading of "Zechariah" the following sentence: "According to the contents of that part of the book which without doubt is by him..."

There can be no doubt that this error is not the Prophet and Messiah Jesus', but rather that of the author and compiler of these traditions. Jesus would never make such a simple error. We Muslims believe that the Prophets were infallible in such matters of religious teaching and interpretation of Scripture. Yet a fallible human collector of well known sayings of Jesus could, and apparently DID make just such an error.

The Unbegotten One

"In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. Say: 'He is Allah the One; Allah the Self-Sufficient. He begets not, nor was He begotten; And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him.'" Al-Qur'an, Sura Al-Ikhlas 112

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِِ قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ

The Qur'an accurately tells us that God does not beget ( لَمْ يَلِدْ ), and similarly, God is Unbegotten ( لَمْ يُولَدْ ). Furthermore, in the Greek manuscripts, it was never written that Jesus Christ was the "begotten" son of God. John 3:16 and John 1:18 each have the word "monogenes" (monogenhV) in Greek. This word ordinarily means "of a single kind." As a result, "unique" (monadikoV) is a far more accurate translation, and anyone can see that these words are nearly identical.

The reason you find translations that render the word as "only begotten" originates from an ancient heresy within the Christian church. In response to the Arian claim that Jesus was made but not begotten of a literal human mother, Jerome (4th century) translated the Greek term "monogenes" into Latin as "unigenitus" (only begotten).

The Greek term for "begotten" is "ghennaho" (gennaw) as found in Matthew 1:2.

"Abraham begot Isaac. Isaac begot Jacob. Jacob begot Judah and his brothers."

abraam egennhsen ton isaak, isaak de egennhsen ton iakwb, iakwb de egennhsen ton ioudan kai touV adelfouV autou,

In reference to Jesus Christ's mystically allegorized relationship to God, later authors - including the Disciple John - did not use this term. Speaking to Maryam Ha'Magdalit (Mary Magdalene); "Jesus said to her, 'Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" John 20:17

legei auth ihsouV, mh mou aptou, oupw gar anabebhka proV ton patera: poreuou de proV touV adelfouV mou kai eipe autoiV, anabainw proV ton patera mou kai patera umwn kai qeon mou kai qeon umwn.

This verse demonstrates that the usage of term "Father" was purely metaphorical as it applied equally to Maryam. Accordingly, the phrase "Only begotten" son would more accurately be translated "Unique son" as the term "monogenes" (monogenhV) suggests. Jesus was certainly "unique" in that he was the Messiah, and in so many other regards that they would be too numerous to mention.

Uniqueness, and "Anointing," from which the word "Messiah" or "Mashiach" ( מָשִׁיחַ ) is derived, do not equate with human god-hood. Certainly Jesus could not have said "only begotten son" when he told Mary Magdalene "my Father and your Father." It is no wonder the earliest Jerusalem Church who Paul was constantly persecuting and arguing with throughout his letters - who were in fact Muslims according to the Qur'an, rather than "Christians" - did not believe in the deity of Jesus..

Similarly, in the the Torah of the "Old" Testament (that imposters, liars and antichrists have always and continue to teach is null and void), the term for "begotten" is found throughout the genealogies of the Book of Genesis. Here we see the term "Yulad" ( יֻלַּד ) a word meaning "to be delivered" which is from "Holid" ( הוֹלִיד ) meaning "to father, to beget; to produce, to give rise to."

"Seth lived one hundred five years, and begot (vayoled) Enosh." Genesis 5:6

וַיְחִי שֵׁת, חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה; וַיּוֹלֶד, אֶת אֱנוֹשׁ.

“Seth lived eight hundred seven years after having begotten (holido) Enosh, and begot (vayoled) sons and daughters." Genesis 5:7

וַיְחִי שֵׁת, אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת אֱנוֹשׁ, שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים, וּשְׁמֹנֶה מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה; וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים, וּבָנוֹת.

In Tehillim, "Psalms" 2:7 we read: "I will declare the decree, YHWH ( יהוה ) has said unto me: 'You are my son; this day have I begotten you (Y'led'tiyka).'"

אֲסַפְּרָה, אֶל-חֹק: יְהוָה, אָמַר אֵלַי בְּנִי אַתָּה--אֲנִי, הַיּוֹם יְלִדְתִּיךָ

Here we see that the word "Y'led'tiyka" ( יְלִדְתִּיךָ ) is used. Again, the root meaning is "to be delivered.” As well Holid ( הוֹלִיד ) means both "to father, to beget" as well as "to produce, to give rise to." With that understanding, the verse can literally be read "this day i have delivered you" or even "this day i have given Rise to you."

Clearly the implications in this verse are different than in the genealogies of Genesis. If it were not so it seems strange that God is speaking allegorically of one being "born" on "this day." This should be obvious that God is saying this to someone who is already an adult who was literally born decades earlier. The "birth" referred to here can only be allegorical in nature.

Since the Gospels tell of this Psalm being fulfilled during the ministry of Jesus, one has two choices: either God literally "begot" Jesus "on THIS day" and not three decades before it and certainly not before the revelation to David - and thus Jesus would not be pre-existent as he himself claimed to be - or the verse is allegorically referring to God "giving Rise to" Jesus on that day, and "delivering him" into a state of Re-birth just as he taught that:

"Jesus answered and said unto him: ’Truly I say unto you, except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God!’" John 3:3

apekriqh ihsouV kai eipen autw, amhn amhn legw soi, ean mh tiV gennhqh anwqen, ou dunatai idein thn basileian tou qeou.

Just as the Bible tells us that those hearing these words could not fathom the allegory of Jesus Christ, so too do those who claim Jesus is one of three manifestation of God, or that he is the "Son of God," not grasp the meaning of his parables and allegory.

It is essential to note first that the author of Tehillim, King David says "YHWH has said unto me: 'YOU are MY son.'" This is essential because it expresses the fact that it is a two person relationship, a "Father" speaking to a "son." If a Father speaks to his son, it is one person speaking to an-other. They may be "One" in purpose, or the like. It is clear that although they are One in Unity, they are not numerically one. A person could see them and say that they are United, just as a team or army is united yet plural; and certainly none could claim that they are numerically one. Thus if a person is to imagine that the "Father" is a God and the "Son" is a God, then they believe in two "gods" numerically, which they hold as "One" in Unity. This doctrine of so-called “Tri-Unity” is merely rationalized polytheism.

Are we to believe that God literally impregnated Mary? The Christian and Muslim alike would say that such a suggestion is ridiculous at best. So we can establish that when the Bible calls Jesus God’s "son" He does not mean that he is His physical progeny. In other words, if God was in fact an anthropomorphic being, you could do a DNA test on him and Jesus and they would not be expected to match. Why? Because Mary conceived without God having intercourse with her, and without God magically placing a “Divine Sperm” cell in her womb. How do we know this? We know because God is above the anthropomorphic conceptualizations of mankind's limited and dualistic mis-understanding. This Divine Supreme Being does not create with sperm and egg, but rather He says only "Exist" or "Be" ( كُن ) and the thing comes to pass.

"You worship what you know not: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth: for the Father seeks such to worship Him. God is Spirit: and they that worship God must worship in Spirit and in Truth." John 3:22

meta tauta hlqen o ihsouV kai oi maqhtai autou eiV thn ioudaian ghn, kai ekei dietriben met autwn kai ebaptizen.

Imam `Ali ibn Abu Talib was also asked whether the Spirit of God (the Ruh'ullah) was the Angel Gabriel, and he replied: "Jibra'il is from the Angels and the Spirit is other than the angels, including the Archangel Jibra'il" (See for example 70/4, 78/38, 97/4). It is according to another report from Ja'far ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq the "Spirit" is "A creature greater than Jibra'il and Mika'il" (S.M.H. Tabatabai, Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an, Lebanon, Mu'assas al-A'lami, 1997, vol. 13, p. 209). According to the Shi'a exegete, Tabatabai, the Spirit of God accompanies the Prophets and is instrumental in the process of revelation (S.M.H. Tabatabai, Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an, Lebanon, Mu'assas al-A'lami, 1997, vol. 13, p. 192).

When the Qur'an speaks of the "Holy Spirit," it uses the term "Ruh al-Quddus" to refer to the spirit of inspiration and revelation. While the Gospel according to John says that Jesus claimed "God is Spirit" (not "a" spirit as some translations mistakenly render it), this does not mean that God is "a" spirit that travels from one localized region to another.

If God was a Spirit, then where is this "Spirit" located? God has a Spirit, but God is above being "a spirit." For the human being the Spirit (Ruh/Ruach) is taken to be the highest embodiment of our self/soul (nafs/nefesh). However, in Hebrew and throughout the Tanakh there are various levels of the Soul, they are:

5. Yechidah
4. Chayah
3. Neshamah
2. Ruach
1. Nefesh

So if God were "a spirit" like "the Holy Spirit" then which form of Spirit would God be? And if God was only one of these five forms of Spirit then God would be 80% limited. The Ruach or Ruh in `Arabic, is only one step above the animal soul of the ego-self, the nefesh or nafs. Allah IS NOT the Ruach, but there is a reflection of Allah called the "Small Face" which is the Ruh. That Ruh is manifest, it is awakened within the Messiah, which is why the Qur'an calls Jesus alone the "Ruh'ullah." This is called "Messianic Consciousness" in Judaism or awakening of the "Buddha" by the followers of Zhu'l-Kifl, the "Buddha." Allah is far beyond that Ruh, however just as that Ruh manifests WITHIN the Construct of Allah's Divine Mind, ALL of Existence itself is manifest as thought within the Mind of Allah.

In John 14:12 Jesus clarifies that his works were not even the pinnacle of human potential: "He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do..."

amhn amhn legw umin, o pisteuwn eiV eme ta erga a egw poiw kakeinoV poihsei, kai meizona toutwn poihsei, oti egw proV ton patera poreuomai:

Clearly no one can do "greater works" than God! There is simply no way Jesus can be construed as having claimed Divinity.

The son of God

The term "son(s) of God" was not a term that the Christian Bible uses exclusively to Jesus Christ. Having had this pointed out to them numerous times as a fatal flaw in Christian dogma, church theologians have investigated the matter and realized the truth that not only is this correct, but "son of God" never implied a literal "Father-son" relationship in the culture and language of the Children of Israel. "Son of God" merely implied that one was a King or was Kingly. We see that even the "Nefilim" ( נְּפִלִים ) are called the "sons of God" in the Book of Genesis. We Muslims understand that the Nefilim are in fact a species of beings called "Jinn," which many ancient cultures worshipped in their primitive religions.

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the Face of the Earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. The Nefilim were in the Earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.” Genesis 6:1-2, 4

וַיְהִי כִּי הֵחֵל הָאָדָם, לָרֹב עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה; וּבָנוֹת, יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם. וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה; וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ, בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וְגַם אַחֲרֵי כֵן אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם: הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מ ;ֵעוֹלָם, אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם

In trying to explain this, the New Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The title 'son of God' is frequent in the Old Testament. The word ‘son’ was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. The title ‘son of God’ was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men..."

Beyond that, the New Testament says that Adam himself was the "son of God:"

"the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Luke 3:38

tou enwV tou shq tou adam tou qeou.

So then there is nothing in the Bible that says Jesus is "The son" of God, but rather that he has a "close relationship" with God.

"Now there was a day when the sons of Elohim came to present themselves before YHWH, and Satan also came among them." Iyov (Job) 1:6

וַיְהִי הַיּוֹם--וַיָּבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, לְהִתְיַצֵּב עַל יְהוָה; וַיָּבוֹא גַם הַשָּׂטָן, בְּתוֹכָם

"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of Elohim shouted for joy?" Iyov (Job) 38:7

בְּרָן-יַחַד, כּוֹכְבֵי בֹקֶר; וַיָּרִיעוּ, כָּל-בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים

"Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what YHWH says: Yisrael is my firstborn son." Sh'mot (Exodus) 4:22

וְאָמַרְתָּ, אֶל-פַּרְעֹה:  כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה, בְּנִי בְכֹרִי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

"You are the children of YHWH Eloheikem (The LORD your God). You shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead." D'varim (Deuteronomy) 14:1

בָּנִים אַתֶּם, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:  לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ, וְלֹא-תָשִׂימוּ קָרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם--לָמֵת.

Of Efraim it is written: "They will come with weeping; they will pray as I ring them back. I will lead them beside streams of water on a level path where they will not stumble, because I am Yisrael's father, and Efraim is my firstborn son." Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah) 31:8

בִּבְכִי יָבֹאוּ, וּבְתַחֲנוּנִים אוֹבִילֵם--אוֹלִיכֵם אֶל נַחֲלֵי מַיִם בְּדֶרֶךְ יָשָׁר לֹא יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָּהּ: כִּי הָיִיתִי לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְאָב, וְאֶפְרַיִם בְּכֹרִי הוּא

Clearly the notion of God as the "Father" of whoever is being referenced is a traditional Jewish one. Jews have NEVER taken this literally. Christians however, did take this literally because they were not from and did not understand Jesus' culture, nor his cultural terminology.

"I said, 'You are 'elohim'; you are all sons of the Most High." Tehillim (Psalm) 82:6

אֲנִי-אָמַרְתִּי, אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם; וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּכֶם

ALL of humanity are said to be elohim, the same term the Torah uses for the Archangels and the polytheistic false "gods" of Egypt as well. This of course is not a statement that all are YHWH,  as it is written: "YHWH is greater than the Elohim" (Exodus 18:11).

Of Prophet David it is written: "He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the Sons of Man (Adam).” Sh'mu'el Bet (2 Samuel) 7:13-14

הוּא יִבְנֶה בַּיִת, לִשְׁמִי; וְכֹנַנְתִּי אֶת כִּסֵּא מַמְלַכְתּוֹ, עַד עוֹלָם. אֳנִי אֶהְיֶה לּוֹ לְאָב וְהֻוּא יִהְיֶה לִּי לְבֵן אֲשֶׁר בּהַעֲוֹתוֹ וְהֹכַחְתִּיובְּשֵׁבֶט אֲנָשִׁים וּבְנִנְעֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם

"Yet the number of the children of Yisrael will be as the sand of the sea, which can't be measured nor numbered; and it will come to pass that, in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of El Chai (the Living God)'." Hoshea (Hosea) 1:10/2:1

וְהָיָה מִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, כְּחוֹל הַיָּם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמַּד, וְלֹא יִסָּפֵר; וְהָיָה בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יֵאָמֵר לָהֶם, לֹא עַמִּי אַתֶּם, יֵאָמֵר לָהֶם, בְּנֵי אֵל חָי

"When Yisrael was a child, then I loved him, and out of Mitzrayim (Egypt) I called My son [Yisrael]." Hoshea (Hosea) 11:1

כִּי נַעַר יִשְׂרָאֵל, וָאֹהֲבֵהוּ; וּמִמִּצְרַיִם, קָרָאתִי לִבְנִי

This clear reference to the Exodus of the 12 Tribes is later paralleled in the Gospels. However, in reference to Jesus it no more means that he was "the son of God" than when it was first said of Israel.

And most importantly, the man that the billions all over the world claim is the "son of God" said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." Matthew 5:9

makarioi oi eirhnopoioi, oti autoi uioi qeou klhqhsontai.

Not only will they "be called" Sons of God, but according to the following verse they will actually BE the "sons of God" ...at least just as much so as Jesus who was referred to by the same terminology in the same books.

"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:44-5

egw de legw umin, agapate touV ecqrouV umwn kai proseucesqe uper twn diwkontwn umaV, opwV genhsqe uioi tou patroV umwn tou en ouranoiV, oti ton hlion autou anatellei epi ponhrouV kai agaqouV kai brecei epi dikaiouV kai adikouV.

"But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked." Luke 6:35

plhn agapate touV ecqrouV umwn kai agaqopoieite kai danizete mhden apelpizonteV: kai estai o misqoV umwn poluV, kai esesqe uioi uyistou, oti autoV crhstoV estin epi touV acaristouV kai ponhrouV.

If you do not understand the context of the words of Jesus Christ then you will not understand his words at all. If you do not understand his cultural and linguistic background, then you know nothing about the real man. Instead you will have only the misinterpretations of a pagan Roman people who framed such terminology as "son of God" within their own polytheistic cultural misunderstanding. Understand that these are but a few of the references in the Bible to people other than Jesus Christ being allegorically called "sons of God."

Say not "Three"

Christians believe that the doctrine of the "Trinity" is the essence of the Gospel teachings. They find it incomprehensible that Islam can claim to accept the message of Jesus but at the same time deny the Christian claims of "trinity."

The doctrine of "Trinity" claims that there are three "Persons," (meaning "plurality" not Singularity), but the “Godhead” of the “Father,” of the “Son” and of the “Holy Spirit,” is “One” - though clearly not in a mathematical ssense. When asked to explain this "Trinity" without dividing God or adding to Him, most will invariably turn to the response of "faith," and will simply claim that these are things that the human mind can not comprehend.

In brief; the “Father,” the “Son” and the “Holy Spirit” are considered to be "co-equal", "co-eternal" and "co-substantial." None is greater than the other, before or after the other in time or dissimilar than the other in substance. However, the entire notion of "Father" and "son" do contradict that reasoning, the Father always exists independently and before the son. With this in mind, if Jesus is truly "son" then "God the Father," by definition, existed before him. Thus it is THIS "Father" who is the Creator of ALL, alone and without partners.

Christianity claims this Truth is too impossible for the human mind to comprehend, yet at the same time they claim to have understanding of it. When asked for quotes from Jesus or the Prophets regarding this matter of "Trinity" they fail to provide anything clear, but rely instead upon ambiguous interpretations. They say "Jesus spoke of God, himself and the Holy Spirit." Of course he did, as well he spoke of many things, but this does not mean that all of these things were all part of a plurality of God. If this doctrine is true yet "too complex for the human mind to comprehend" then we need a clear and decisive teaching from Jesus Christ relaying this. Otherwise it must be rejected as human conjecture and innovation. However, you cannot find such a quote from the mouth of Jesus, nor can you find teachings where he clearly says "I am God," nor "worship me" nor "pray to me." These doctrines are found only from the mouth of Paul. If no human mind can comprehend this "truth" then how is it that we are to assume that Paul's mind did?

"YHWH is One"

"Hear O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is One." Deuteronomy 6:4

שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד

The term used for "One" in "the Sh'mah" is "Achad" ( אֶחָד ). In Hebrew it means "One," "first," and "single." It does not merely mean "United" which "Echad" ( אִחֵד ) means; it is used as the number "one" as well. The word for "Three" is "Shlosha" ( שְׁלוֹשָׁה ) from which we get the word "Sh'leshiyah" (trio, שְׁלִישִׁיָּה ). However, much to the dismay of Christians, "Sh'leshiyah" ( שְׁלִישִׁיָּה ) also means "triplets" and "threesome." It does not, and cannot mean "Three persons in One." There is no word for "Three persons in One," because there is no such possibility as "Three persons in One." That is nothing but theological schizophrenia.

Interestingly there is no Hebrew term for "Trinity." One might wonder, if this was such a cornerstone dogma of the pre-Christian followers of Jesus Christ, the Prophets and Children of Israel, then why is there not, nor has there ever been a Hebrew term to convey such a concept?

The reason is because this is not a Semitic concept, it is a Hellenistic one. Theophilus of Antioch (180 C.E.) was the first to use the word “trinity” in Greek ecclesiastical writings. This is not a teaching of Jesus Christ nor of his disciples. Rather it is a later innovation of non-Semites who were not commissioned by God to teach on His behalf.

Not finding any rational for such a foreign concept to the faith practiced in the Torah, Muslims do not subscribe to this notion of Trinity. The under quoted verses from the New Testament categorically and in very explicit terms, negate the concept of Jesus and God being "co-equal" or "partners" in a "God-head."

"...I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I." John.14:28

hkousate oti egw eipon umin, upagw kai ercomai proV umaV. ei hgapate me ecarhte an, oti poreuomai proV ton patera, oti o pathr meizwn mou estin.

"Behold, My servant whom I have chosen; My Beloved in whom My Soul is well pleased; I will put My Spirit upon him, and he shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles." Matthew 12:18

idou o paiV mou on hretisa, o agaphtoV mou eiV on eudokhsen h yuch mou: qhsw to pneuma mou ep auton, kai krisin toiV eqnesin apaggelei.

"And this is eternal life, that they may know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." John 17:3

auth de estin h aiwnioV zwh, ina ginwskwsin se ton monon alhqinon qeon kai on apesteilaV ihsoun criston.

"And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.'" Mark 10:18

o de ihsouV eipen autw, ti me legeiV agaqon; oudeiV agaqoV ei mh eiV o qeoV.

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Matthew 24:36

ean oun eipwsin umin, idou en th erhmw estin, mh exelqhte: idou en toiV tameioiV, mh pisteushte:

"Jesus said to her, 'Stop clinging to me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'" John 20:17

legei auth ihsouV, mh mou aptou, oupw gar anabebhka proV ton patera: poreuou de proV touV adelfouV mou kai eipe autoiV, anabainw proV ton patera mou kai patera umwn kai qeon mou kai qeon umwn.

"And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and he knelt down and began to pray, saying, 'Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from me; yet not my will, but Your’s be done.'" Luke 22:41-42

kai autoV apespasqh ap autwn wsei liqou bolhn, kai qeiV ta gonata proshuceto legwn, pater, ei boulei parenegke touto to pothrion ap emou: plhn mh to qelhma mou alla to son ginesqw.

"Then Jesus said to him, 'Be gone, Satan! For it is written: 'You shall worship the LORD your God, and serve the LORD only.'" Matthew 4:10

tote legei autw o ihsouV, upage, satana: gegraptai gar, kurion ton qeon sou proskunhseiV kai autw monw latreuseiV.

"The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant Jesus..." Acts 3:13

o qeoV abraam kai [o qeoV] isaak kai [o qeoV] iakwb, o qeoV twn paterwn hmwn, edoxasen ton paida autou ihsoun, on umeiV men paredwkate kai hrnhsasqe kata proswpon pilatou, krinantoV ekeinou apoluein:

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You did Anoint..." Acts 4:27

sunhcqhsan gar ep alhqeiaV en th polei tauth epi ton agion paida sou ihsoun, on ecrisaV, hrwdhV te kai pontioV pilatoV sun eqnesin kai laoiV israhl,

"For you first, God raised up His servant, and sent him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways." Acts 3:26

umin prwton anasthsaV o qeoV ton paida autou apesteilen auton eulogounta umaV en tw apostrefein ekaston apo twn ponhriwn umwn.

Even Paul, whom Muslims do not accept as a valid "Apostle" nor as a teacher of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, said: "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:3

qelw de umaV eidenai oti pantoV androV h kefalh o cristoV estin, kefalh de gunaikoV o anhr, kefalh de tou cristou o qeoV.

"And you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God." 1 Corinthians 3:23

umeiV de cristou, cristoV de qeou.

So a Christian might ask, why it is that Muslims bear Witness that Jesus is the Spirit - the “Ruh” ( رُوح ) - of God, but at the same time we reject that worship of Jesus. The reason is clearly that "Allahu Akbar" - "Allah is Greater than anything that we can ascribe to Him." While it is the very nature of the Messiah to be indwelled with the Ruh'ullah, it would be pure idolatry to hold the individual - within whom was "the Ruh" - as the Most High. While the individual has limits, (death, aging, hunger, sickness, etc.), God does not. God is Greater than all things physical or spiritual. So clearly the Muslim (one who SUBMITS to the Divine Will), must seek out the Source, the Creator not anything created.

Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" John.10:30 (egw kai o pathr en esmen), therefore, Christians would inquire, "Is not Jesus the same, or, 'co-equal' in status with the Father?"

In Greek, "hen" (en) means "one" in Unity or essence. It is a a neutral word. While "heis" (eiV) means "one" numerically. Here the word used by John is "hen" (en) and not "heis" (eiV). The marginal notes in New American Standard Bible reads; "One - (neutral) a Unity, or one essence." If one wishes to argue that the word "one" supports their claim for Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father, be aware of the following verse:

Jesus said: "And the glory which You have given me, I have given to them (disciples); that they may be One (en) , just as we are One (en) ." John 17:22

kagw thn doxan hn dedwkaV moi dedwka autoiV, ina wsin en kaqwV hmeiV en

Yet strangely, searchable databases of the Greek New Testament define the word "hen" (en) as "heis" (eiV)! Knowing that the majority of Christians dare not tread down the "terrifying" path of studying the languages of the Scriptures that they claim to believe as "God's Word" they leave the word as "hen" in Greek, yet alter their English definition of the word. This they must do, least they be immediately decried for altering their Scriptures further than they have already been altered many times over. Again, knowing that even most pastors only have a peripheral knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, they define this word much the same as if one strangely defined the word "Unity" by saying "the number one." Why would they feel the need for such ambiguous translation if they did not recognize the fact that the actual Greek documents contradict their notion of “Tri-nity;” literally "Three-ness" rather than "Uni-ty" or "Oneness" as "hen" (en) means?

Thus, if John 10:30 means that Jesus is God, then according to John 17:22 it also would mean that the Disciples were God too. Yet, quite obviously Jesus' words were referent to Divine Unity of being, not of his equality with the Creator of ALL. A thought within the Mind is ONE with the Mind, yet this thought itself is not the Totality of the Mind. It is only a product Thereof, created within the construct of the Mind's Thought. This is what Jesus Christ was saying.

Each individual must practice their religious beliefs however their heart is inclined to. There is no compulsion in Islam (Qur'an, Sura 2:256). But those who know the Reality must speak the Truth as it is. The Light that Jesus Christ manifested was the Light of Allah. One must not focus on the Messiah's bodily form - for if they do, they will not recognize him when he returns. Rather it is the essence of the teachings which the Messiah brings that should be our focus. The Spirit which animates the body of the Messiah is the same Spirit that animates All.

This is the same "Spirit of Elohim" (Ruach Elohim, רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים ), that hovered over the face of the waters when the Earth emerged from its Primordial Origin (Genesis 1:2); "the Spirit" (Ha'Ruach, הַרוּחַ ) that was breathed into mankind (Adam, אָדָם ), making him a "Living Soul" (Genesis 2:7). Christ is the unawakened potential within us all. Again, Jesus said:

"He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do..."

amhn amhn legw umin, o pisteuwn eiV eme ta erga a egw poiw kakeinoV poihsei, kai meizona toutwn poihsei, oti egw proV ton patera poreuomai:

Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, but again we must not assume that state is exclusive to one people's limited conceptualization of Divinity or "religion." Jesus is the Messiah, but his Message is Eternal and no different, (though perhaps more realized), than any other Prophet. This statement does not downplay his significance. The Unity we speak of is at the core of his Message, and takes precedence within true Islam. It's not about theoretically understanding this Unity, we must actualize it in our daily lives. There is only One, and with God there are no divisions nor partners. La ilaha, ill-Allah.

The Plan of Salvation

Let it be known that most Muslims, at least in the West, are not ignorant of the Christian view of God's plan for Salvation. However, just to leave no doubt in your mind, i will explain my understanding of it; as I have learned it first hand. Christians believe that the plan of God was to save man through the blood of Jesus Christ. They believe that God created all of Creation and it was "good." "Tov" (טוֹב) that is what the Torah says in Sefer Ha'Berashit, the Book of Genesis. It does not say "it was with 'sin nature.'" No, in its natural state the Torah tells us that "it is good." This is what we Muslims believe. As the Christians say "God doesn't make junk." We don't think that God "messed up." We don't imagine that God created the Universe perfectly, with so much intrinsic beauty, order and perfection, but then somehow just couldn't get it right when it came to mankind. We believe that when God made all of creation, it was good, Tov, Tayyib.

Likewise, we do not believe that God created mankind without knowing full well that we would taste of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We do not believe that Adam and Eve tasting of this Knowledge condemned and innocent man, the Messiah, to die. We do not see this as Just or even as rational and sane. We worship a Just God, Al-`Adl. No nation of any civilized people recognize it as justice for an innocent man to be punished for the crimes of the guilty. Jesus never in any verse of the Bible said or alluded to this.

Nevertheless, Romans did not think this way. The idea that Creation was inherently Good, and beautiful was not a Roman notion. Rome was fixated on disaster and tragedy. This was undoubtedly due to their own subconscious awareness that they themselves were trotting down the path of destruction. So their own nature had them fixate upon tragedy, upon their own "fate" if you will.

The Romans would not accept a god that was not like man. They would not accept a god that was not anthropomorphic. They would not accept a god with out some sense of tragedy inherent to Him. They believed in Zeus, Hermes, and these sorts of deities. They did not want to hear about the god of the Children of Israel. They wanted to hear of a god that comes down from Mount Olympus and interacts with the mortals. That is what Greek Mythology was all about. We all know the stories from their pagan myths, the West has filled our ears with these stories from the day of our birth; it would be redundant to reiterate any of them for you.

This is the type of "God" that the Romans wanted. They simply would not accept a God as the Semites understood Him. To them a god that they could not see, touch, hear and talk with was not a powerful God, but a weak one. To them a God that did not come down from Mount Olympus and beget offspring with mortals and goddesses alike, was not a mighty God, but a pathetic one, undeserving of worship.

These were a wicked people. Like an unruly child who only obeys a parent when they are around them, watching them, and ready to punish them, so too were the Roman people only fearful of a "god" that they could see. This is the sort of God that they feared because in their minds he might come down at any time and punish them.

The teachings of Jesus Christ were not like this. There is no such quote from him in the entirety of the Gospels where Jesus Christ says "God is my Father and not yours," or "come and worship me" or God-Forbid "i am God." No he did not say these things, though you have been given the false impression that he has. For instance your Bibles, priests and pastors will tell you that he said "Before Abraham was I AM." This is trying to imply that he said the Hebrew Divine Name "Eheyeh" which literally means "I WILL BE" as in the words of YHWH to Prophet Moses, "Eheyeh Asher Eheyeh" (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה). When Moses asked the identity, the "Name" the "meaning" of YHWH, the Malak YHWH, the "Angel of the LORD" told him "Eheyeh Asher Eheyeh," "I WILL BE THAT [WHICH] I WILL BE." He did not say "I AM" (אֲנִי) nor even "I WILL BE" (אֶהְיֶה) alone, not to mentioned not having said "Eheyeh Asher Eheyeh" (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה). Understand what your Scripture says.

So it would not have made a bit of sense for Jesus Christ to say "Before Abraham was I AM" (John 8:58). No, this is not why the Pharisees, the P'rushim, picked up stones to throw at him. Rather they were angry because Jesus said that he was pre-existent.

"The Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." John 8:57-59

eipon oun oi ioudaioi proV auton, penthkonta eth oupw eceiV kai abraam ewrakaV; eipen autoiV ihsouV, amhn amhn legw umin, prin abraam genesqai egw eimi. hran oun liqouV ina balwsin ep auton: ihsouV de ekrubh kai exhlqen ek tou ierou.

First of all "I AM" is not grammatically correct in this quote. The Greek of this verse says the word for existence "imee" (eimi). It says "Before Abraham came into existence (ginomai) i (that is, his self, his ego, nafs or nefesh, egw) existed (eimi).

As the Bible says of him in this regard, so too to we believe. The Qur'an refers to a pre-Existent being, that is sent down with the Angels. God calls this being "Ar-Ruh" the Ruh (رُوح), the Spirit. In Hebrew it is Ruach (רוּחַ) as in Ruach Ha'Qodesh (רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ) or "Holy Spirit." The Qur'an further claims that Jesus Christ is the "Ruh'ullah" the "Spirit of Allah." This Ruh that is send down on Laylat'ul-Qadr, the Night of Power, when Muhammad received the Revelation of the Qur'an. This Ruh'ullah is the name the Qur'an gives for Jesus. So a Muslim knowledgeable of these matters will know that we do not necessarily deny that he was pre-existent. We do not deny that, though it is not essential to Islamic theology. In other words, a Muslim can still live a faithful live and be "Saved" without knowing or accepting the reality of what "Ar-Ruh" is. As Imam `Ali said, "Allah accepts anyone based upon the sincerity of their Iman (Faith)." For Allah is the Hidden and the Manifest; Al-Batin and az-Zahir.

However, this is not a study of `Irfan, of Gnosis. As the Bible says, a child must have milk before solid food. The Christians of this world must first drink their milk and then they will be ready for the solid food of what we call "`irfan."

So Christians, be aware that i am not in ignorance of what you believe. i have heard it all. i have listened to it all for years. It is simply not a reasonable conclusion that your pastors and theologians have drawn for you. i say that they have drawn it for you because i know that you have not drawn it for yourselves. If you say in your hearts that you have drawn it for yourselves, then i challenge any of you in the entire religion of Christianity, to disprove what i have said and will say here about Jesus Christ.

Jesus tells us not to hide our "Aur" (אוֹר), or "Nur" (نُور), our "Light" under a bushel. There is a famous Christian children's song about this; i'm sure you all know it. You have been taught this from your youth. Do not hide your Light under a bushel. If you have Light to caste away the darkness of the ignorance that you believe us Muslims - in the world's fastest growing spiritual path - to be in, then by all means present it to me. Do not talk amongst yourselves about it. Challenge me openly. Invite me to your churches, your youth groups, your schools. Invite local Muslims as well to come to your churches so we may debate these issues. Have me over for dinner. Come let us reason together if yours is a reasonable religion.

The Qur'an says that "Truth is manifest from falsehood." If the truth is with Christianity then gather your local Muslims together and gather me so i can lay out our case and you can lay out yours. i am confident that those with eyes to see and ears to hear, will gravitate towards Islam; the FASTEST growing religion.

What does the Qur'an say?

In response to the Christian theology that we all know and understand, that Muhammad knew and understood as well, what did Muhammad say? What did he claim that God Himself through the Archangel Gabriel had told him to say? He completely and unequivocally denied the killing of Jesus Christ. He said, at the dictation of the Archangel Gabriel, "And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, `Isa (Jesus) son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure." Al-Qur'an, Sura An-Nisa 4:157

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا

Why would Allah say "they follow only a conjecture?" According to the Christian Bible, in the canonical Gospels, what does it say happened to the Disciples of Christ before the Crucifixion?

"Now Peter was sitting outside in the court, and a maid came to him, saying, 'You were also with Jesus, from the Galilee!' But he denied it before them all, saying, 'I don't know what you are talking about.'"  Matthew 26:69-70

o de petroV ekaqhto exw en th aulh: kai proshlqen autw mia paidiskh legousa, kai su hsqa meta ihsou tou galilaiou. o de hrnhsato emprosqen pantwn legwn, ouk oida ti legeiV.

My Christian friends (and enemies as the case may be), children of Adam who also trace the lineage of their Prophets back to Abraham; you know as well as i do that the disciples were nowhere to be found when this “crucifixion” occurred. They were hiding. They were "laying low." You know as well as i do that Peter denied Christ when he was taken away and all but John went into hiding. So who was present at the crucifixion?

"Many women were there watching from afar, who had followed Jesus from the Galilee, serving him. Among them were Mary from Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jacob and Yosi, and the mother of the sons of Zabedee." Matthew 27:55-56

hsan de ekei gunaikeV pollai apo makroqen qewrousai, aitineV hkolouqhsan tw ihsou apo thV galilaiaV diakonousai autw: oyiaV de genomenhV hlqen anqrwpoV plousioV apo arimaqaiaV, tounoma iwshf, oV kai autoV emaqhteuqh tw ihsou:

Which of the Disciples were there witnessing the Crucifixion? Again, we are told only of "John," who is referred to in the crucifixion account as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved. Therein he says to John:

"Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' From that hour, the disciple took her to his own home." John 19:27

eita legei tw maqhth, ide h mhthr sou. kai ap ekeinhV thV wraV elaben o maqhthV authn eiV ta idia.

So we are told two things. First of all that Maryam the Mother of Jesus was there witnessing the crucifixion "from afar." So when Jesus said this, when he called out to John who was nearby her he too must have been at "afar." But what is most significant is the statement that: "From THAT HOUR, the disciple took her to his own home."

That is, John knew at that point that he was to get Maryam the Mother of Jesus out of there. In THAT HOUR they both left. After they, did the narrative says that Jesus saw "that all things were now finished." Now what could that mean? What was to be "finished?" Christians claim that things were in fact NOT finished yet, they had not hardly BEGUN yet. To Christians it was the DEATH of Jesus that was what "finished" the matter. So what exactly was happening here in Jesus' mind that he now said only after his mother left that it was finished?

"After this, Jesus, seeing that all things were now finished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I am thirsty.” Now a vessel full of vinegar was set there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop, and held it at his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished.” He bowed his head, and gave up his spirit." John 19:28-30

meta touto eidwV o ihsouV oti hdh panta tetelestai, ina teleiwqh h grafh, legei, diyw. skeuoV ekeito oxouV meston: spoggon oun meston tou oxouV usswpw periqenteV proshnegkan autou tw stomati. ote oun elaben to oxoV [o] ihsouV eipen, tetelestai: kai klinaV thn kefalhn paredwken to pneuma.

Jesus naturally did not want his mother to think that he died. Thus John clearly understood from Jesus' comment that he was to take Maryam to his own house right then and there, in "that hour." He did so and then "seeing that all things were now finished," that is, in relation to his plan, he said "i am thirsty" to those present. They put a sponge full of vinegar and hyssop and let him suck it from the sponge.

Now interestingly the term for spirit in the Greek can also mean "breath" just as the Hebrew term "Ruach." Pnyumah (pneuma) can literally mean "breath" or LITERALLY "movement of air." So contrary to this verse saying that "He bowed his head and died" which it could have easily said, the account was that after drinking this rather strange and out of place concocted mixture of vinegar and hyssop, Jesus bowed his head and the movement of air from his nostrils ceased. This "movement of air" appearing to have ceased - or slowed down so much as to not be noticeable - does NOT mean that one has clinically died.

Now we must ask ourselves, what was this strange mixture that caused Jesus to instantly pass out into a comatose state? For the Gospel "according to" John does not match up with the Gospel "according to" Mark in 15:23, which says: "They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall" nor does that match up with the Gospel "according to" Matthew in 27:34, which says: "They gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh."

So was it hyssop, was it gall or was it myrrh? Was it vinegar or was it alcohol? Regardless of these clear inconsistencies between the accounts of the Gospel narrators, we know one thing for certain. There was some strange and unprecedented mixture at the scene of the crucifixion. This mixture contained not only a liquid but also an herbal concoction mixed with it. Many herbal formulas are mixed with an alcohol base to get the herb IMMEDIATELY infused within the bloodstream, bypassing digestion. We have the Gospel according to Matthew saying that this was an alcohol base. This would make sense since we see that immediately after receiving the mixture of these herbs and possibly others, Jesus bowed his head and appeared to have stopped breathing.

The Gospel "according to" John says that the hyssop STALK was merely used. So Christians would assert that there is no contradiction here. However, the use as a hyssop stalk as a means of conveying the sponge to Jesus’ mouth is an almost impossible task-for the plant produces only very slender and fragile stems. So what we can surmise is that for one, NONE of these authors were present at this crucifixion. But from what they heard there was a mixture of herbs in an alcohol base that immediately caused Jesus to pass out.

Christians have speculated that the mixture given in Mark, wine with myrrh, could be meant as an attempt to alleviate the pain Jesus was about to endure. Wine and myrrh could have had a sedative effect and lessen his sense of pain. In Matthew however the mixture had changed to wine with gall. Gall has an extremely bitter taste, so in Matthew the intention seems to be the opposite that of Mark, that it was meant to add to the torture of Jesus.

Nevertheless, since the purpose of herbal medicine is not to torture, nor to please the taste buds of the one to whom the herbal formula is administered, it may very well have been that gall, myrrh and hyssop were all used as ingredients in an herbal concoction within an alcohol base.

This "Gall" was Biblically a very bitter plant, the bitterness being associated with the idea of poison. Deuteronomy 29:17 speaks of the term "ro'sh" (רֹאשׁ) meaning "a poisonous herb," Lamentations 3:5,19; Jeremiah 8:14; 9:15; 23:15, "water of gall," translated herein as "poison," Hosea 10:4, translated "hemlock," Amos 6:12 says "You have turned justice into gall," Job 20:16, comments that "ro'sh" is the "poison of asps."

"Ro'sh" clearly refers to a different substance from the other references, the points in common being bitterness and poisonous properties. Hemlock (Conium maculatum), colocynth (Citrullus colocynthus) and the poppy (Papaver somniferum) have all been suggested as the original ro'sh, the last having most support. However, in most references the word may represent any bitter poisonous substance.

Mererah (מְרֵרָתִ) found in Job 16:13, and Merorah (מְרוֹרַת) of Job 20:14,25, both derived from a root meaning "to be bitter," are applied to the human gall or "bile," but like merorah is once applied to the venom of serpents (Job 20:14). The poison of these animals was supposed to reside in their bile. So what is strangely being given to Jesus was not something to simply alleviate his pain, but some extremely potent herbal concoction, with a type of poison within it. Matthew says that Jesus only took a small amount of this poison. It is insinuated by the narrator (who again was simply not present and is going on second, if not third hand information), that this was because of the bitter TASTE of the gall. Nevertheless, Jesus himself was a healer, he was an herbal physician. He knew how much of what to take. Matthew does not say that after tasting this poison he spit it out. No, rather it says he did not take any more. That is, he wasn't going to suck the sponge dry of this mixture. It didn't taste good, and it wasn't necessary that he drink it all, or even one more drop than he had drank; for as soon as he did, he uttered a few words and passed out. With this in mind, Jesus either died from POISONING rather than crucifixion, or he did not die at all!

We have these differences between the Gospel accounts. We have the Gospel ACCORDING TO Matthew, the Gospel ACCORDING TO Mark, the Gospel ACCORDING TO Luke, the Gospel ACCORDING TO John. "According to?" What does that mean? It means that these are the testimonies of these individuals. It does not mean that it is God's Words, for if it was then surely there would be no discrepancies between these testimonies; which there is discrepancies between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. One could give an entire lecture or write and entire book on that matter alone. The Qur'an issues that challenge; that if it is not the Word of God, then surely they would have found many contradictions therein. i have yet to see one claim of "contradiction" in the Qur'an to hold even a tiny drop of water. On the contrary the Qur'an contains descriptions of plate tectonics, the Big Bang and the "Cosmic Crunch," the atomic weight of Iron, and the fact that it was the only element brought down from outer space. As well, the process of fetal development is described step by step.

"Do they not then meditate on the Qur'an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found many a contradictions therein." Al-Qur'an, Sura 4:82

أَفَلاَ يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللّهِ لَوَجَدُواْ فِيهِ اخْتِلاَفًا كَثِيراً

A Quick Death?

So we know that these corruptions in the Bible are not God's Words. These the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; four men who were not present at the crucifixion that they are telling us what happened at. So God Most High said through His Archangel Gabriel: "and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture."

So what happens next? Pilate cannot believe that Jesus could have possibly died so quickly. The famous Jewish historian Josephus claimed that it was commonplace for people to survive crucifixion. In telling of his own friends who were crucified, he says the following:

"Once more when I was sent by Titus Caesar...to a village called Tekoa to prospect whether it was a suitable camp, and, on my return, saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of my acquaintances among them, I was cut to the heart, and came and told Titus with tears what I have seen. He gave orders immediately that they should be taken down and receive the most careful treatment. Two of them died in the physician's hands, the third survived."

Autobiography immediately after he finished the Antiquities of the Jews in AD93. His last work, published after the Autobiography, was Against Apion.

So not only was it possible to survive the crucifixion, but we have accounts that a strange, somewhat poisonous, herbal mixture was given to Jesus, in an alcohol base to speed its absorption into his blood. Had this been given by an agent of the Roman state in order kill him, then there are a number of problematic issues raised. For one, why would Rome do Jesus any favors in lessening his suffering? Why would they hasten his death? Two, if this was the case then why was Pilate astonished at how quickly Jesus supposedly died? And thirdly, if this was the case then why did the centurion there feel the need to cut Jesus to see if he was dead? If he had deliberately poisoned Jesus then he would not have had to wonder.

Nailing to a cross was one of the most common forms of execution used by the Romans, designed to cause a protracted, agonizing death. There were instances of people having survived quite lengthy periods of crucifixion. According to Mark 15:44, Pilate was astonished that Jesus had not survived into the evening. Josephus makes this clear to us as well.

"When evening had now come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathaea, a prominent council member who also himself was looking for the Kingdom of God, came. He boldly went in to Pilate, and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate marveled if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead long. When he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph." Mark 15:42-45

kai hdh oyiaV genomenhV, epei hn paraskeuh, o estin prosabbaton, elqwn iwshf [o] apo arimaqaiaV euschmwn bouleuthV, oV kai autoV hn prosdecomenoV thn basileian tou qeou, tolmhsaV eishlqen proV ton pilaton kai hthsato to swma tou ihsou. o de pilatoV eqaumasen ei hdh teqnhken, kai proskalesamenoV ton kenturiwna ephrwthsen auton ei palai apeqanen: kai gnouV apo tou kenturiwnoV edwrhsato to ptwma tw iwshf.

That is, Joseph was already knowledgeable that Jesus was supposedly dead. He "boldly" (knowing that it was important), went in to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Now Christians will often site the reason why Maryam Ha'Magdalit was waiting to "anoint" to "rub" the bruised and battered body of Jesus on Sunday morning was because she could not have done it before because it was the Sabbath. However, this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Jewish Sabbath. First of all it IS permissible to bury the dead on Shabbat. Secondly Shabbat begins and ends at NIGHTFALL, not at midnight like the days begin and end in the West. So this verse 42 of chapter 15 of the Gospel "according to" Mark says "evening had now come." That means it was already Yom Ha'Shabbat when he went in to ask for the body from Pilate. This means that all of the transportation of the body, and the wrapping in of the body in liniment and aloes to heal it was done during Shabbat. When Shabbat was over on Saturday at nightfall, Maryam Ha'Magdalit let the body lie in the sepulture of Joseph. It was only the NEXT morning that she came to "anoint" to "massage" or "rub" it. Certainly this was not because of Shabbat.

When Joseph went in to Pilate he knew that this matter could not wait. If it was a corpse, if Jesus was dead, then it could have perhaps waited, or he could have allowed Jesus to have just been covered over with dirt like the rest of the crucified victims of the Roman state. If he was dead then what would be the problem with dirt covering over him?

However, Joseph knew there was a special urgency to this matter, an urgency that prompted him to risk his own safety (and possibly freedom), by forcefully asking for this corpse of this revolutionary, this political dissident from Pilate. Pilate could not imagine that anyone, let alone this healthy young man, could have died so quickly. This was not the norm. Pilate had overseen many such executions. He found this so "astonishing" that he asked for verification of it from the centurion. That is, he didn't initially believe Joseph. He assumed Joseph was claiming this man was dead when he was not, so that he could take the body and resuscitate it away from the eyes of Rome. So Pilate asks for verification from the centurion. What verification do we see is given?

"Therefore the Jews, because it was the Preparation Day, so that the bodies wouldn’t remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a special one), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Therefore the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was already dead, they didn’t break his legs. However one of the soldiers PRODDED (enuxen) his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water flowed out suddenly." John 19:31-34

oi oun ioudaioi, epei paraskeuh hn, ina mh meinh epi tou staurou ta swmata en tw sabbatw, hn gar megalh h hmera ekeinou tou sabbatou, hrwthsan ton pilaton ina kateagwsin autwn ta skelh kai arqwsin. hlqon oun oi stratiwtai, kai tou men prwtou kateaxan ta skelh kai tou allou tou sustaurwqentoV autw: epi de ton ihsoun elqonteV, wV eidon hdh auton teqnhkota, ou kateaxan autou ta skelh, all eiV twn stratiwtwn logch autou thn pleuran enuxen, kai exhlqen euquV aima kai udwr.

The Bible claims clearly that the body of Jesus IMMEDIATELY (euquV) poured (exhlqen) forth - from the Greek verb "exerkhomahee" (exercomai) meaning "FLOW forth from the body" or "appear suddenly" - blood when stabbed (John 19:33-34). This was AFTER the narrator claimed he was dead. Anyone with even a marginal knowledge of biology and forensics knows that a body does not pour forth blood unless the heart is beating, that is, still pumping blood. CORPSES DO NOT BLEED.

Another interesting point of Biblical contradiction is that we are told that Pilate had no idea that Jesus was dead and that he was "astonished" that he was already. But here we read that this was the plan all along, for Pilate to be nice to the Jews and kill all of these victims before Shabbat. After all, according to Christianity, it was the Jews and not the Romans who were the "Christ Killers." The Anti-Semitic disciples of Paul let the truth slip out when they recorded Pilate's reaction. Had he truly have ordered this breaking of the legs to hasten the death of the victims of crucifixion then he would have to either be a complete idiot or afflicted with Alzheimer's disease to have been "astonished" when Jesus was claimed to have died already.

Instead, we see that the reality was that Pilate asked a centurion to verify that Jesus was dead. If he was, then he told Joseph that he could have the corpse. So the centurion seeing this limp body reaches his spear up and "cuts," or "stabs" the side of Jesus. No, he did not "transfix" the body or "pierce it through" as you may have been told by pastors and Sunday School teachers. No Jesus was NOT virtually impaled from the side. The Greek says, "enuxen" (enuxen) from the word "noosso" (nussw), this can mean anything from a shallow puncture, to a "prodding." The Centurion was "prodding" the body to see if it was alive. He was not interested in mutilating a corpse.

We are told not that Jesus was "transfixed" with an entire spear, but that he was "stabbed," "prodded" or "pricked" with a "SPEAR-HEAD." The term used is "logch" in the Greek and it is properly used to indicate the spear head ALONE, and not the spear itself.

Herodotus said: "They also had spears (aicmav) tipped with an antelope's horn sharpened like a spear-point (logchv)" (vii. 96)

We see clearly that "logchv" is used to indicate the "spear-point" and not the "spears" which are called "aicmav."

Another verb is rendered "pierced" in verse 37, the quotation from Zechariah 12:10, "ejxekenthsan," which occurs also at Revelation 1:7, with reference to Christ's crucifixion, and is used in classical Greek of putting out the eyes, or stabbing, and in the Septuagint of Saul's request to his armor-bearer: "Draw your sword and thrust me through therewith" (1 Chronicles 10:4).

The Hasta (spear) Velitaris was the standard thrusting spear of Roman centurions. It had a wooden shaft 3ft long and an iron head 9 inches in length. It was carried by the units called Triarii in Republic times. Marius military reforms later made the Pilum the standard spear carried by all legionaries.

The Pilum was the other main spear of Rome in those times. It was supposedly introduced by Camillus but was designed for throwing in battle and not for thrusting like the Hasta Velitaris. The Pilum was a short, well balanced throwing spear with 4 1/2 foot shaft and an iron head of about the same length. The iron shank of the head was driven up into the shaft about half of its length. This would bring the total length to about 6 feet long. This however, was not the spear used by Roman centurions when patrolling or standing guard. Instead it was reserved for battle. Any either case, both spears were quite shorter than the far Eastern variety, and is much shorter than the image that the Church has concocted in the collective psyche.

Now with this in mind, let us consider the height of a standard Roman cross. We are told in John 3:14 that: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up"

kai kaqwV mwushV uywsen ton ofin en th erhmw, outwV uywqhnai dei ton uion tou anqrwpou,

Thus, Jesus was "lifted up." He was not low to the ground, he was raised up, elevated. The fixed upright portion of the "stipes crucis" was at least 8 feet in height but were generally 10 to no more than 12 feet heigh. Crosses ranged from 300 to 800 pounds in weight! Jesus was "lifted up" on this massive cross; "lifted up" over the heads of the Roman centurion who stabbed him with no more than the "head" of his 3 foot 9 inch long Hasta Velitaris. This means that even if this was a short cross, the centurion would have had to reach up with the full length of his arm and jab at Jesus' side with this thrusting spear. This is why the Bible tells us only the "spear head" penetrated. Jesus was NOT "transfixed" through his body with this spear. This centurion was not Goliath, he was an average Roman man of average Roman height. It is physically impossible that this spear head could have gone far into Jesus. As well, we are told that in accordance with Scripture "not a bone was broken" in Jesus' body. That includes his rib cage. Spear heads are designed to ensnare when they penetrate. If this spear head penetrated deep into his torso beyond his rib cage (which again could not have happened due to the shortness of this spear and the height of the cross), then upon it being drawn out, it would have literally torn his ribs apart. The Bible tells us that this did not happen; not a bone in his body was broken.

Bandages Not A Burial Shroud

When the Gospel According to John relays the one and only account of Lazarus being dead and brought back to life miraculously by Jesus Christ, it says that Lazarus was buried in the traditional Jewish manner of being "bound around" (periestwta) the face by a "napkin" (soudariw), and his feet were bound - holding together a traditional burial shroud - with a "band" (keiriaiV).

"So they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, 'Father, I thank you that you listened to me. I know that you always listen to me, but because of the multitude that stands around I said this, that they may believe that you sent me.' When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, 'Lazarus, come out!' He who was dead came out, his feet bound with a band, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, 'Free him, and let him go.'” John 11:41-44

hran oun ton liqon. o de ihsouV hren touV ofqalmouV anw kai eipen, pater, eucaristw soi oti hkousaV mou. egw de hdein oti pantote mou akoueiV: alla dia ton oclon ton periestwta eipon, ina pisteuswsin oti su me apesteilaV. kai tauta eipwn fwnh megalh ekraugasen, lazare, deuro exw. exhlqen o teqnhkwV dedemenoV touV podaV kai taV ceiraV keiriaiV, kai h oyiV autou soudariw periededeto. legei autoiV o ihsouV, lusate auton kai afete auton upagein.

Still today Jews and Muslims alike use such a burial shroud to wrap our dead in. When you turn on the news and see Hamas militants whose bodies are being carried in funeral processions, they are wrapped in these sorts of white linen shrouds. However, while many Christians claim the so-called "Shroud of Turin" was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, the Bible says otherwise.

While Lazarus was wrapped in a shroud as was customary, and was "bound" by a kireeah (keiria), with a sudarium (soudariw), a napkin wrapping over his face, "bound around" (peridedemenos) from the word "perideho" (peridew), in the very same book we see no such claimed of Jesus' burial. Since those who buried both were traditional Jews, we should expect that Jesus too would have this "band" (keiriaiV) wrapping around a shroud, like the "Shroud of Turin" (which Carbon 14 dates to the 1300's C.E.) that Christianity so desperately wants to link with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for them, while they are correct in saying that this sort of burial shroud was what Jews of that place and time were buried in, the Bible says that Jesus was not given a "burial" as he was not wrapped in a "shroud" but in "small strips of linen."

"Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulcher; and stooping down, he beheld the linen strips laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass." Luke 24:12

o de petroV anastaV edramen epi to mnhmeion, kai parakuyaV blepei ta oqonia mona: kai aphlqen proV eauton qaumazwn to gegonoV.

The Greek uses the term for "small strips of linen" (oqonia). Thus there was no "shroud" as you would see in a burial, but rather there were "small strips," there were what we would call "bandages" with which Jesus was wrapped in liniment and healing aloes; nearly 100 pounds in all!

"After these things, Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away Jesus' body. Pilate gave him permission. He came therefore and took away his body. Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. So they took Jesus' body, and bound it in linen strips with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden. In the garden was a new tomb in which no man had ever yet been laid.  Then because of the Jews’ Preparation Day (for the tomb was near at hand) they laid Jesus there. John 19:38-42

meta de tauta hrwthsen ton pilaton iwshf [o] apo arimaqaiaV, wn maqhthV tou ihsou kekrummenoV de dia ton fobon twn ioudaiwn, ina arh to swma tou ihsou: kai epetreyen o pilatoV. hlqen oun kai hren to swma autou. hlqen de kai nikodhmoV, o elqwn proV auton nuktoV to prwton, ferwn migma smurnhV kai alohV wV litraV ekaton. elabon oun to swma tou ihsou kai edhsan auto oqonioiV meta twn arwmatwn, kaqwV eqoV estin toiV ioudaioiV entafiazein. hn de en tw topw opou estaurwqh khpoV, kai en tw khpw mnhmeion kainon en w oudepw oudeiV hn teqeimenoV:

There are two main important points recorded here which are verifiably and OBVIOUSLY erroneous. First of all it is said that it was "Jewish custom" to bury a man in "strips of linen." As we can see from the burial of Lazarus, this simply was not true. Moreover, it is erroneously stated that it was "Jewish custom" to soak those "linen strips" in 100 pounds of aloe! This is a tremendous weight. If Jesus Christ was about 200 pounds as one might expect a strong and healthy man of his age and activity level to be, then this added 100 pounds of aloe soaked bandages would have made his corpse 300 pounds. There is no Jewish religious reason to put the healing herb Aloe on a dead body. Aloes are to heal cuts, burns and things of that nature. It is used externally for no other reason. Yet here we see a man buried completely differently than Lazarus was when he died. We see no shroud as we should if he was dead. We see no band with which to bind a shroud. We see nothing but "small strips of linen" that are strangely soaked in 100 pounds of aloes. Why would 100 pounds of aloes be caked on to a dead man? Aloe cannot heal the dead, but it can heal the living.

At every turn we see that though the authors of the canonical Gospels do not understand the implications of what they are recording, they are nonetheless giving us clear information that Jesus Christ DID NOT die on the cross, and that some of his key followers knew good and well that he was not dead.

We do not see "Doubting" Thomas carrying him off to a sepulture. We do not see Peter, James and John doing anything but showing up on Sunday morning AFTER being told by Maryam Ha'Magdalit that their Rabbi was now revived from the tomb and had gotten up and left. No, we see the one man who was there, on the scene after John took Maryam the Mother of Jesus to his home. We see Joseph of Aramathea taking this man, wrapping him in bandages, rather than a burial shroud, and covering this man from head to toe in liniments and aloes.

Lazarus' head was "bound about" with a so-called "sudarium." This may suggest a chin band, which was actually used to bind the head of a corpse to prevent the lower jaw from falling down. John uses different words in describing the burial of Jesus. His head was not bound with a "sudarium," but rather "covered" (entetyligmenon) by it. Indeed, he says quite clearly that the cloth was "placed on or over the head" (epi tes kephales), probably to exclude other readings, especially "binding." Clearly it was not a concern that Jesus' lower jaw would fall down, since he was still alive.

By using these quite distinct forms of expression, the author of the Gospel of John distinguished between the burial of Lazarus and that of Jesus; he uses different words for events which only "appeared" to be similar. In this way he probably wished to make it clear to the attentive reader that these were two fundamentally different events. The raising of Lazarus from the dead was described in a way which showed that it was an event taking place after the burial of a dead body. In the case of Jesus, however, everything suggests that it was not an ordinary "burial."

Rather he was wrapped in bandages and 100 pounds of healing medicinal herbs and placed in a tomb while he healed; in ordder to give the appearance that he had died. This body was not left to rot as one would leave a corpse. Rather, Maryam Ha'Magdalit was right there, bright and early Sunday morning to "rub" this body with even MORE herbs.

"Then they took the body of Jesus, and wound (edesan) it in linen clothes (othoniois) with the spices (meta ton aromaton), as the manner of the Jews is to bury (entaphiazein)." John 19:40

elabon oun to swma tou ihsou kai edhsan auto oqonioiV meta twn arwmatwn, kaqwV eqoV estin toiV ioudaioiV entafiazein.

 The interpretation of this sentence has for various reasons caused many exegetes a lot of difficulties. The verb "deo," which is found in the form "edesan," means "to bind." However, normally one binds with a band of fabric ("spargana", "keiriai"), with "cords" (desmoi) or with thongs, but not with cloths. Savio avoids the problem by MIS-translating "deo" as "wrap up," following certain Greek manuscripts in which it is used with the preposition "en."

In Mark 15:46 we find instead the verb "eneileo" to stress that Jesus was not only covered with a cloth but that the body was wrapped up quite tightly, one could almost say packaged up. Nevertheless, it does not suggest a winding round as one wraps a mummy. The term "kateilisso" would be more suitable for expressing that. This term is used for example by Herodotus to describe the wrapping of a Greek soldier's injury. However, "eneileo" is found in the literature in connection with a certain way of preparing food, first wrapping it in fig leaves. Evidently this word was preferred for describing the covering of Jesus' body, to describe the tight and damp packing due to the herbal liniments and aloes absorbed in the cloth.

In order to justify the unusual form of this description, several interpreters have suggested that a kind of embalming was intended. They refer to the 100 pounds of herbs which Nicodemus procured: "And there came also Nicodemus, which at first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight." John 19:30

ote oun elaben to oxoV [o] ihsouV eipen, tetelestai: kai klinaV thn kefalhn paredwken to pneuma.

The Gospel narrative says that Nicodemus "came by night" obviously because his treatment of the corpse was covert. One has to have a clear idea of just how much this enormous quantity is. If the aloe and myrrh were in dried or powdered form, a whole row of sacks would probably be necessary to make up this weight, and Nicodemus must have had assistance to be able to transport the load. The transport would have been even more difficult if the substances were dissolved in wine, vinegar or oil.

The theologian Paul Billerbeck makes the event appear as if an embalming was to take place with the herbs added to oil. This was never part of Jewish custom; nor was embalming. Moreover it would be pointless to perform the embalming in the way described. One would have had to remove the entrails to stop the decomposition gases from bursting the body; an incision which would be extremely repulsive to the Jews, and the substances applied would not have served this purpose on their own. Consequently many Bible experts find this passage in the Gospel "according to" John to be confusing and pointless.

Joseph and Nicodemus were occupied in activities which simply had nothing to do with the Jewish burial rites. John says that they buried Jesus in the way customary for the Jews, and then goes on to describe a burial which openly contravenes the custom!

"Why Do You Seek The Living Among the Dead?"

One of the strangest things we find in the post-crucifixion accounts of the Bible is that early Sunday morning, Maryam Ha'Magdalit, the woman who until 1969 the Catholic church slandered by calling a whore, this woman who washed Jesus' feet with her own hair, was present at the tomb on Joseph of Arimathaea's private property. Why was she there?

The traditional Christian excuse is that since Jesus died "right before" the Sabbath, the Jews (who for some reason were still following the Torah that Paul would later claim was abrogated through the "blood of Jesus") - and by "Jews" it is meant Joseph of Arimathaea and Maryam Ha'Magdalit - could not prepare his body on the Sabbath.

The problem with this is that according to the Bible, Joseph did not even request the body of the still living Jesus until the Sabbath, Yom Ha'Shabbat had already begun. Jews, like `Arabs begin their days the evening before the sunrise. That means Shabbat is Friday evening at sundown until Saturday evening at sundown. It has ALWAYS been this way, and CERTAINLY was 2,000 years ago. This ignorance of Jewish tradition and Law is reflected in the Biblical accounts.

"Behold, a man named Joseph, who was a member of the council, a good and righteous man (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), from Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was also waiting for the Kingdom of God: this man went to Pilate, and asked for Jesus’ body. He took it down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb that was cut in stone, where no one had ever been laid. It was the day of the Preparation, and the Sabbath was drawing near. The women, who had come with him out of Galilee, followed after, and saw the tomb, and how his body was laid. They returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they and some others came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb. They entered in, and didn’t find the Lord Jesus’ body. It happened, while they were greatly perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling clothing. Becoming terrified, they bowed their faces down to the earth. They said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He isn’t here, but is risen. Remember what he told you when he was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again?” Luke 23:50-24:7

kai idou anhr onomati iwshf bouleuthV uparcwn [kai] anhr agaqoV kai dikaioV outoV ouk hn sugkatateqeimenoV th boulh kai th praxei autwn apo arimaqaiaV polewV twn ioudaiwn, oV prosedeceto thn basileian tou qeou, outoV proselqwn tw pilatw hthsato to swma tou ihsou, kai kaqelwn enetulixen auto sindoni, kai eqhken auton en mnhmati laxeutw ou ouk hn oudeiV oupw keimenoV. kai hmera hn paraskeuhV, kai sabbaton epefwsken. katakolouqhsasai de ai gunaikeV, aitineV hsan sunelhluquiai ek thV galilaiaV autw, eqeasanto to mnhmeion kai wV eteqh to swma autou, upostreyasai de htoimasan arwmata kai mura. kai to men sabbaton hsucasan kata thn entolhn, th de mia twn sabbatwn orqrou baqewV epi to mnhma hlqon ferousai a htoimasan arwmata. euron de ton liqon apokekulismenon apo tou mnhmeiou, eiselqousai de ouc euron to swma tou kuriou ihsou. kai egeneto en tw aporeisqai autaV peri toutou kai idou andreV duo epesthsan autaiV en esqhti astraptoush. emfobwn de genomenwn autwn kai klinouswn ta proswpa eiV thn ghn eipan proV autaV, ti zhteite ton zwnta meta twn nekrwn; ouk estin wde, alla hgerqh. mnhsqhte wV elalhsen umin eti wn en th galilaia, legwn ton uion tou anqrwpou oti dei paradoqhnai eiV ceiraV anqrwpwn amartwlwn kai staurwqhnai kai th trith hmera anasthnai.

We are told that "Sabbath was drawing near." That SHOULD mean that it was near sunset, but it was not yet quite there. We are told that the women were preparing "spices and ointments," apparently part of the 100 pound herbal concoction of aloes and liniment that Jesus' was wrapped in. However, they "rested according to the commandment." First of all, the "Commandment" of Shabbat NEVER mandated that the dead not be given a proper burial until after the day of rest. Certainly ANY Jew would have afforded a man a proper burial on Shabbat, LET ALONE Jesus' own disciples who saw Jesus doing other permissible practices such as healing the sick on Shabbat

The Gospel according to Mark, who was apparently ignorant of when Yom Ha'Shabbat begins, says: "When evening had now come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathaea, a prominent council member who also himself was looking for the Kingdom of God, came. He boldly went in to Pilate, and asked for Jesus’ body. Pilate marveled if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead long. When he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. He bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been cut out of a rock. He rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Yosi, saw where he was laid. When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Jacob, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. They were saying among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” for it was very big. Looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back. Entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were amazed. He said to them, “Don’t be amazed. You seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen. He is not here. Behold, the place where they laid him! But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he said to you.’” Mark 15:42-16:7

kai hdh oyiaV genomenhV, epei hn paraskeuh, o estin prosabbaton, elqwn iwshf [o] apo arimaqaiaV euschmwn bouleuthV, oV kai autoV hn prosdecomenoV thn basileian tou qeou, tolmhsaV eishlqen proV ton pilaton kai hthsato to swma tou ihsou. o de pilatoV eqaumasen ei hdh teqnhken, kai proskalesamenoV ton kenturiwna ephrwthsen auton ei palai apeqanen: kai gnouV apo tou kenturiwnoV edwrhsato to ptwma tw iwshf. kai agorasaV sindona kaqelwn auton eneilhsen th sindoni kai eqhken auton en mnhmeiw o hn lelatomhmenon ek petraV, kai prosekulisen liqon epi thn quran tou mnhmeiou. h de maria h magdalhnh kai maria h iwshtoV eqewroun pou teqeitai. kai diagenomenou tou sabbatou maria h magdalhnh kai maria h [tou] iakwbou kai salwmh hgorasan arwmata ina elqousai aleiywsin auton. kai lian prwi th mia twn sabbatwn ercontai epi to mnhmeion anateilantoV tou hliou. kai elegon proV eautaV, tiV apokulisei hmin ton liqon ek thV quraV tou mnhmeiou; kai anableyasai qewrousin oti apokekulistai o liqoV, hn gar megaV sfodra. kai eiselqousai eiV to mnhmeion eidon neaniskon kaqhmenon en toiV dexioiV peribeblhmenon stolhn leukhn, kai exeqambhqhsan. o de legei autaiV, mh ekqambeisqe: ihsoun zhteite ton nazarhnon ton estaurwmenon: hgerqh, ouk estin wde: ide o topoV opou eqhkan auton. alla upagete eipate toiV maqhtaiV autou kai tw petrw oti proagei umaV eiV thn galilaian: ekei auton oyesqe, kaqwV eipen umin.

Unfortunately for the Christian dogmists, including Mark, this doesn't fit with logic. If "evening had now come" then BY DEFINITION it COULD NOT have been "the day before the Sabbath." This was Friday, "Good Friday" according to the Christians who delight in the spectacle of this man's pain so that they might sin and sin and sin and still vainly believe Paradise is promised to them. If Jesus was crucified on "Good Friday" and "evening had now come" when Joseph went in to Pilate to request the body, then this means ALL of this was going on DURING Shabbat!

Yet still Mark carries on this nonsensical myth that the reason why Maryam Ha'Magdalit, and Maryam the Mother of Jesus and Jacob (James) along with Salome or Shlomit came "while it was still dark" on Sunday morning was because they just didn't have a chance to bury Jesus because it was the Sabbath before then.

"Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene went early, while it was still dark, to the tomb, and saw the stone taken away from the tomb. Therefore she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have laid him!” John 20:1-2

th de mia twn sabbatwn maria h magdalhnh ercetai prwi skotiaV eti oushV eiV to mnhmeion, kai blepei ton liqon hrmenon ek tou mnhmeiou. trecei oun kai ercetai proV simwna petron kai proV ton allon maqhthn on efilei o ihsouV, kai legei autoiV, hran ton kurion ek tou mnhmeiou, kai ouk oidamen pou eqhkan auton.

Even if Mark wouldn't have let the proverbial cat out of the bag by saying that "evening had now come" then this would still beg the question of why on Earth wouldn't these women have come right at sunset on Saturday evening (when Shabbat was over). The narrator is under the mistaken impression that the "new day" begins at Sunrise in Hebrew culture and law. His ignorance in this matter allows the truth to slip through the cracks of his narration.

In only one of the narrations is there the claim that Roman guards were placed at this tomb on the private property of Joseph of Arimathaea.

"Many women were there watching from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, serving him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jacob and Yosi, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. When evening had come, a rich man from Arimathaea, named Joseph, who himself was also Jesus’ disciple came. This man went to Pilate, and asked for Jesus’ body. Then Pilate commanded the body to be given up. Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut out in the rock, and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed. Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the tomb. Now on the next day, which was the day after the Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together to Pilate, saying, “Sir, we remember what that deceiver said while he was still alive: ‘After three days I will rise again.’ Command therefore that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest perhaps his disciples come at night and steal him away, and tell the people, ‘He is risen from the dead;’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.” Pilate said to them, “You have a guard. Go, make it as secure as you can.” So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone. Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. Behold, there was a great earthquake, for an Angel of the Lord descended from the sky, and came and rolled away the stone from the door, and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him, the guards shook, and became like dead men. The Angel answered the women, “Don’t be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus, who has been crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, just like he said. Come, see the place where the Lord was lying. Go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been roused (hgerqh) from sleep, and behold, he goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him.’ Behold, I have told you.” Matthew 27:55-28:7

hsan de ekei gunaikeV pollai apo makroqen qewrousai, aitineV hkolouqhsan tw ihsou apo thV galilaiaV diakonousai autw: en aiV hn maria h magdalhnh kai maria h tou iakwbou kai iwshf mhthr kai h mhthr twn uiwn zebedaiou. oyiaV de genomenhV hlqen anqrwpoV plousioV apo arimaqaiaV, tounoma iwshf, oV kai autoV emaqhteuqh tw ihsou: outoV proselqwn tw pilatw hthsato to swma tou ihsou. tote o pilatoV ekeleusen apodoqhnai. kai labwn to swma o iwshf enetulixen auto [en] sindoni kaqara, kai eqhken auto en tw kainw autou mnhmeiw o elatomhsen en th petra, kai proskulisaV liqon megan th qura tou mnhmeiou aphlqen. hn de ekei mariam h magdalhnh kai h allh maria kaqhmenai apenanti tou tafou. th de epaurion, htiV estin meta thn paraskeuhn, sunhcqhsan oi arciereiV kai oi farisaioi proV pilaton legonteV, kurie, emnhsqhmen oti ekeinoV o planoV eipen eti zwn, meta treiV hmeraV egeiromai. keleuson oun asfalisqhnai ton tafon ewV thV trithV hmeraV, mhpote elqonteV oi maqhtai autou kleywsin auton kai eipwsin tw law, hgerqh apo twn nekrwn, kai estai h escath planh ceirwn thV prwthV. efh autoiV o pilatoV, ecete koustwdian: upagete asfalisasqe wV oidate. oi de poreuqenteV hsfalisanto ton tafon sfragisanteV ton liqon meta thV koustwdiaV. oye de sabbatwn, th epifwskoush eiV mian sabbatwn, hlqen mariam h magdalhnh kai h allh maria qewrhsai ton tafon. kai idou seismoV egeneto megaV: aggeloV gar kuriou katabaV ex ouranou kai proselqwn apekulisen ton liqon kai ekaqhto epanw autou. hn de h eidea autou wV astraph kai to enduma autou leukon wV ciwn. ⁴apo de tou fobou autou eseisqhsan oi throunteV kai egenhqhsan wV nekroi. apokriqeiV de o aggeloV eipen taiV gunaixin, mh fobeisqe umeiV, oida gar oti ihsoun ton estaurwmenon zhteite: ouk estin wde, hgerqh gar kaqwV eipen: deute idete ton topon opou ekeito. kai tacu poreuqeisai eipate toiV maqhtaiV autou oti hgerqh apo twn nekrwn, kai idou proagei umaV eiV thn galilaian, ekei auton oyesqe: idou eipon umin.

Whether or not this singular account can be trusted since no one else makes mention of it in their narrations of the exact same story is unimportant. Why would Angels have to come down to roll away a stone that someone who Christians claim is God Himself, someone who Christians say just defied nature and came back from the dead could easily do by himself?

What do these Angels say? Contrary to the BLATANT mistranslations from the Greek by Christian theologians who have a vested interest in concealing the truth of what these passages say, the verse DOES NOT say that "he has risen from the dead." Rather, the passive form for "raised" (hgerqh) is employed, from the verb "egiro" (egeirw), meaning literally "to cause to get up" to "rise" or "to arouse from sleep." This is in the passive form because Jesus did not rouse all by himself, but was roused by these two Angelic Messengers of God Almighty. This of course is strange that the verb is in the PASSIVE form if you are a Christian who believes that Jesus is God and thus raised himself. Either Jesus is God or he isn't, and if he is, then he would neither need these Angels nor anyone else to resuscitate him. Why do the Christian translators of this passage feel the need to interject words that are simply not there in the Greek? Obviously we know that they MUST do this to create a basis for their baseless religion, created by Paul and NOT Jesus or his Disciples.

Moreover, we are told by the narrator Mark, that the women had come to "Anoint" the body of Jesus with "spices" that is "herbs" and "ointment;" that is "medicine." It is common knowledge that within three hours after death, rigor mortis sets in - the breaking up of the body cells - the hardening of the body. In three days the corpse starts rotting from within. If someone were to massage such a rotting body, it would fall to pieces. Tragically i have seen this first hand from the corpse of a close friend of mine whose body was shattered by a drunk driver. Three days after he was smashed by this drunk driver his funeral was held. i went down to his home town for this to comfort our mutual friends and his fiancé. She was absolutely delirious with sorrow. At first it appeared she was merely talking to the corpse of her dead fiancé, and my good friend. But then as i approached i could see she was rubbing his hand, she was "massaging" it much in the same way as these women were to "anoint" the body of Jesus. My friend's fiancé was horrified to see that her dead fiancé's hand was coming apart in her own hand. We immediately guided her away and explained to her that this occurred because of the rigor mortis having set in.

The Hebrew word for anoint is "masach," (מָשַׁח) which means - "to rub," "to massage," "to anoint." The word and its meaning are the same in the Arabic language also. From this root word "masaha" (مَسَحَ) we get the Arabic word "Masih" (مَسِيح) and the Hebrew "Mashiach" (מָשִׁיחַ) both meaning the same thing - "the Anointed One" which is translated into Greek as "Christos" (cristoV) from which we derive the word Christ. Does it make a bit of sense that these women would have wanted to massage, to anoint, rubbing with ointment and herbs, a dead body after days of rigor mortis? Of course this makes no sense at all, neither is it the tradition of Jews, Christians or Muslims to "anoint" the corpses of the dead.

What the Qur'an Says about the Crucifixion

The publishers of any good translation of The Qur'an have printed the original Arabic text, side by side with the English text. This is because the English is not the Qur'an. The Qur'an is the original `Arabic Qur'an, just as Jews maintain that the Torah is the original Hebrew Torah, not the doctored version that King James had composed. A good example of why this is can be found in the fact that there are several words in Hebrew for "Love" and for "Sin" as well as for "Soul." One might translate Nefesh (נֶפֶשׁ) as "Soul" or Neshamah (נְשָׁמָה) as "Soul" or Ruach (רוּחַ) as "Soul" or "Spirit." One might also translate "Ruach" as "Breath" or "Wind." Which is it? One without knowledge of the original Hebrew will have no idea which word was used, or what the subtle implications of the word usage might be unless they have the original Hebrew.

As well, the doctrine of "Trinity" is fundamental to Christian theology. But one should ponder the fact that in Jesus Christ's native tongue of Hebrew, there is no word for Trinity. None at all! If you want to say "Trinity" you would have to say "Shalosh" which is literally the number three. If you want to say "One" then you would say "Achad" as in "The Sh'mah" - "Sh'mah Yisrael YHWH Elohenu, YHWH Achad" - "Hear O Israel, the LORD Your God, the LORD is One."

This is what the Prophets taught about Allah. He is "ONE" or "Achad" not "Shalosh." Thus the Holy Qur'an says:

"O followers of the Book! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Masih (Messiah), `Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus the son of Mary), is only a messenger of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Maryam and a Spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and Hu's Rasul. And say not 'Three,' Desist! It is better for you, for Allah is One, Glory be to Him, Far exalted is He above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a disposer of affairs." Al-Qur'an 4:171

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لاَ تَغْلُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ إِلاَّ الْحَقِّ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ ثَلاَثَةٌ انتَهُواْ خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ إِنَّمَا اللّهُ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَات وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ وَكَفَى بِاللّهِ وَكِيلاً

"They disbelieved who say: 'Allah is one of three.' for there is no god except Allah the One. If they desist not from their word, verily a grievous chastisement will befall the disbelievers among them. Qur'an: 5:73

لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلاَثَةٍ وَمَا مِنْ إِلَـهٍ إِلاَّ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ وَإِن لَّمْ يَنتَهُواْ عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ لَيَمَسَّنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِنْهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

This is exactly how the God of the Tanakh, the so-called "Old Testament" was viewed. This is exactly how Jesus Christ himself spoke of Allah who he claimed was "greater than" himself. This is how the early Jerusalem "Church" who followed Christ yet did not call themselves "Christian" since that was not a word in their Hebrew and Aramaic vocabulary, spoke of God, the One and the Only.

Christians are now attempting to use the Dead Sea Scrolls as their propaganda, to "prove" that their Bible is the same now as it was then. However, the "Bible" of the Dead Sea Scrolls is different in almost every page. Book stores now carry this "Dead Sea Scrolls Bible." Read it sometime. Almost every page has some footnote if not several about how there are textual variants between it and the modern Bible. The original Greek manuscripts of Mark never had any post-Resurrection stories. Now they do. Why? The originals had no such thing. Modern Bibles even admit this. The Truth is coming out. They say "the oldest manuscripts did not say these things." Then why do the modern ones say it?

The oldest Greek manuscripts of the Book of Revelation say that the "Mark of the Beast" was "616" not "666." Yes, "616" and this is a number of calculation for those who can calculate. This number is not in most modern Bibles, yet it was in the oldest Greek manuscripts. Why? The reason is that "Caesar Nero" is Greek. The earliest orthodox Nicean approved version of this text say "616" which equals "Caesar Nero" in Greek gematria.

However, this indicates that the Roman Beast of the Sea, with 7 heads (the 7 hills of Roman as well as alluding to the 7 continents that the Revived Roman Empire would essentially control, along with 10 Horns or Kingdoms of Rulers), was still alive at the time of the authorship of the Book of Revelation. Accordingly, while the oldest GREEK manuscripts of Revelation trace to 90 C.E. the centrality of "Caesar Nero(n)" (Nerwn Kaisar) indicates an older HEBREW version (which is logical since the author of the Book of Revelation was in fact Jewish). As such, later translations drawing from this now "lost" original (lost in the Vatican's Secret Archives that is), changed 616 to "666," matching the Hebrew geamatria for "Neron Caesar" (נרון קסר). As the Hebrew translated "Nero" as "Neron," the geamatria for the Greek rendition of "Nero Caesar" would be 616 (נרו קסר). Interestingly from a Greek numerology perspective, the Greek letters that spell out the Greek words, which are translated in English as "Caesar God" (Kaisar qeos) equals 616 as well.

So we know that the authenticity of the New Testament is highly suspect. We have seen clear contradictions therein, and we have seen that the authors of the Gospels apparently did not figure out that Jesus Christ had in fact NOT died on the cross clinically, nor was he wrapped in a burial shroud but in medicine and bandages. We know that Christianity does not have the original texts in the original language of Jesus and the disciples (lest they be deliberately concealed in the Vatican Secret Archives). It is within this setting that the Qur'an makes its claims against some of the Christian dogma.

The Qur'an says the following regarding the crucifixion of Jesus Christ:

"And because of their saying: We slew the Masih (Messiah), `Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus the son of Mary) Rasul'ullah (Allah's Messenger) - they killed him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain." Al-Qur'an, Sura 4:157

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا

This is perhaps one of the most controversial and often presumptuously interpreted passage of the Qur'an. Breaking it down, we read the following:

"But they killed him not, nor crucified him."
"wa ma qatalahu wa ma salabuhu”

وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ

"Wa" (وَ) means: "And, also, but, while." "Ma" (َمَا) is a negative participle that means "not" in this case. "Qatalahu" means "they killed him." Again, "Wa" (وَ) means: "And, also, but, while." "Ma" (َمَا) again, is a negative participle that means "not" in this case. The following word  "salabuhu" (صَلَبُوهُ) means "they crucified him." Taken together this means that "But they killed him not and what they crucified him not."

"But nonetheless, a likeness of that was shown to them."

"walakin shubbiha lahum"

وَلَـكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ

All translated textual variations appear in the translation/interpretation of the end portion of the verse which reads: "walakin shubbiha lahum" (وَلَـكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ). In the `Arabic, there is no variation, the text is the same no matter which Qur'an you have. However, the translation of this sentence is different in English depending on who has done the translation and what their understanding of the context of these words is.

"Wa" (وَ) means:  "And, also, but, while." Lakin (لَـكِن) means: "But, still, nevertheless." In some circumstances, "walakin" (وَلَكِن) is a conjunction used together as one term, such as in this case. Shubbiha (شُبِّهَْ) means: "To be made like, A likeness or similitude." This could refer to: "A likeness or similitude (of Jesus)," or "a likeness or similitude (of Killing)," or  "A likeness or similitude (of Crucifixion)," or "A likeness or similitude (of Killing & Crucifixion)." Finally, "Lahum" (لَهُمْ) means: "[Was] made for them."

All together "wa ma qatalahu, wa ma salabuhu, wa lakin shabbiha lahum" is rendered "And they killed not and they crucified him not, but a nonetheless, a likeness of that was shown to them." In other words, they did not kill and crucify him. However, it WAS made to look that way. This does NOT mean that someone else was necessarily on the cross, but it DOES mean that if this was Jesus then the entire thing was merely "made to look" like he was put on the cross, killed and left for dead in the privately owned Tomb of Joseph. It means that although the Gospel narrators claim he was dead, they reveal enough forensic scientific evidence for us to know, without a shadow of a doubt, that the man they described DID NOT DIE, though they were clearly led to believe that he had.

The last sentence of this Ayah is the most revealing. For after saying that these people who believe that they killed and crucified Jesus Christ do not know what they are talking about and follow only a conjecture, the Qur'an reiterates ONLY "Wa ma qatalahu yaqeenan" (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا), that "they did not kill him for certain." This is important to pay attention to. For although the Qur'an is making it clear that they did not kill and crucify him as they thought, we are told that nevertheless there was something that was like that which was "shown to them," it was "made for them." Despite all of their claims, they only follow a conjecture, FOR CERTAIN they did not kill him. Again, it does not say "for certain they did not kill and crucify" him. Thus, it is left unexplained what this "appearance" of a crucifixion was that was "made for them" and how this appearance causes the Qur'an to not include crucifixion as what is "certain" that they did not do.

Muhammad was not accommodating existing beliefs regarding this matter. This was an "inside story" that the masses had yet to hear. God was revealing through His Messenger Muhammad, that something altogether different happened regarding the crucifixion. The Qur'an says that the official story of killing of crucifixion of Jesus Christ is only conjecture; it did not happen that way at all. Instead the Qur'an tells us only that "for certain" he was not killed.

For to speak of crucifixion in the days after the Christian rise to power, evokes the thought of death. So when it is said that they did not kill and crucify him, but he did not die for certain, then the Qur'an is not saying that the man did not fake his death on the cross. The Qur'an is saying that there was some sort of hoax, some sort of "appearance" something "made to look" like a death by crucifixion, but "they did not kill him for certain."

What Really Happened

If Muhammad is saying these things, and if he is claiming that they are from God Almighty Himself, verbatim as dictated by the Archangel Gabriel, then certainly there must be some explanation as to what did actually happen there on the tree of Golgotha. Some Muslims believe that the answers lie in a book called the "Gospel of Barnabas" which nearly all, if not all, Christians and many Muslims believe is a forgery. What i am telling you is not from that book. So you may have to go back to "Answering Islam.com" or any of the thousands of books of Anti-Islam propaganda that Christians write about how to deal with us. You may have to go back and tell them to rip up the script and start anew.

After presented with what i am telling you there will be two options: One, admit that perhaps you were wrong about your interpretation of the Bible, and that you wrongly trusted the clergy, priests, Vatican and whoever else has concealed these truths from you. Or option two is that you can ignore what i have said and pretend never to have heard it. Imagine me as a demon whispering deceit in your ear. Just block it out completely. Don't even listen to it. Don't even take these questions to your Church, Sunday school, youth group, Young Life, or Christian school. Don't confront anyone with them demanding the answers that you deserve. If you refuse to change then this second option is your best one. Because i am telling you now, i have asked THOUSANDS of Christians these very questions in all of those places, and not one of them has devised a reasonable answer to date.

If the Qur'an says that Jesus Christ only appeared to be crucified then what really happened? Let us examine the texts of the four canonical Gospels.

From the outset, the fourth canonical Gospel opens with the infamous, yet plagerized, quote: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Allah and the Word was Allah." These are the very words of Rig Veda of India.

In the beginning was Brahman [God] (Prajapatir vai idam asit)

With whom was the Vak [Word] (Tasya vag dvitya asit)

And the word is Brahman [God] (Vag vai paramam Brahma)

The similarities between these two quotes are too close to possibly disregard. But far from the Gospel having influenced the writing of the Vedas, we know that the Vedas are among the most ancient of all world Scriptures. Clearly, these words found their way from the Vedas of India into the Gospel "according to" John. Many will ask, or rather they should ask, how can this be if the New Testament is the Word of God, written by Divine Inspiration?

In 1894 Nicolas Notovitch published a book called "The Unknown Life of Christ." He was a Russian doctor who journeyed extensively throughout Afghanistan, India, and Tibet. Notovitch journeyed through the passes of Bolan, over the Punjab, down into the arid rocky land of Ladak, and into the majestic Vale of Kashmir of the Himalayas. During one of his journeys he was visiting Leh, the capital of Ladak, near where the Buddhist convent Himis is. He had an accident that resulted in his leg being broken. This gave him the unexpected and unscheduled opportunity to stay awhile at the Himis convent.

Notovitch learned, while he was there, that there existed ancient records of the life of Jesus Christ. In the course of his visit at the great convent, he located a Tibetan translation of the legend and carefully noted, in his "Carnet de voyage," over two hundred verses from the curious document known as "The Life of Saint Issa."

He was shown two large yellowed volumes containing the biography of "Saint Issa." Notovitch enlisted a member of his party to translate the Tibetan volumes while he carefully noted each verse in the back pages of his journal.

When he returned to the western world there was much controversy as to the authenticity of the document. He was accused of creating a hoax and was ridiculed as an imposter. In his defense he encouraged a scientific expedition to prove the original Tibetan documents existed.

One of his skeptics was Swami Abhedananda. Abhedananda journeyed into the arctic region of the Himalayas, determined to find a copy of the Himis manuscript or to expose Notovitch as a fraud. His book of travels, entitled "Kashmir O Tibetti," tells of a visit to the Himis Gonpa and includes a Bengali translation of two hundred twenty-four verses essentially the same as the Notovitch text. Abhedananda was thereby convinced of the authenticity of the Issa legend.

In 1925, another Russian named Nicholas Roerich arrived at Himis. Roerich, was a philosopher and a distinguished scientist. He apparently saw the same documents as Notovitch and Abhedananda. And he recorded in his own travel diary the same legend of Saint Issa.

Of course many in the West have heard tell of the Qur'anic name "Isa" to refer to Jesus Christ. However, one should now be asking themselves, "Who is this 'Isa'?" "Isa" is the Tibetan, not `Arabic, name for Jesus. Yet it is by this name that the Qur'an refers to Jesus Christ. The Qur'an does not call him "Yasu" which it should have if it were using the `Arabic term for "Joshua." Arabic Bibles all say "Yasu" but Allah Almighty called him "`Isa" in the Qur'an!

Muhammad called Jesus "The Traveling Prophet." we could tell you of what occurred in his youth in Persia, India, and in his twenties in Egypt, and after his faked crucifixion what occurred in India, Greece, Spain and the like. Before you are fit for such teachings, you need to first be made aware of the reality that there was no death and no resurrection. Subsequently there was no blood atonement and the teachings of the Antichrist Paul, the arch-enemy of James the Brother of Jesus, are apostasy.

The Life of Saint Issa (in Tibet)

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/jesus/issa.htm

BEST OF THE SONS OF MEN

CHAPTER I

1 The earth has trembled and the heavens have wept because of a great crime which has been committed in the land of Israel.

2 For they have tortured and there put to death the great and just Issa, in whom dwelt the soul of the universe,

3 Which was incarnate in a simple mortal in order to do good to men and to exterminate their evil thoughts

4 And in order to bring back man degraded by his sins to a life of peace, love, and happiness and to recall to him the one and indivisible Creator, whose mercy is infinite and without bounds.

5 Hear what the merchants from Israel relate to us on this subject.

CHAPTER II

1 The people of Israel, who dwelt on a fertile soil giving forth two crops a year and who possessed large flocks, excited by their sins the anger of God

2 Who inflicted upon them a terrible chastisement in taking from them their land, their cattle, and their possessions. Israel was reduced to slavery by the powerful and rich pharaohs who then reigned in Egypt.

3 These treated the Israelites worse than animals, burdening them with difficult tasks and loading them with chains. They covered their bodies with weals and wounds, without giving them food or permitting them to dwell beneath a roof,

4 To keep them in a state of continual terror and to deprive them of all human resemblance.

5 And in their great calamity, the people of Israel remembered their heavenly protector and, addressing themselves to him, implored his grace and mercy.

6 An illustrious pharaoh then reigned in Egypt who had rendered himself famous by his numerous victories, the riches he had heaped up, and the vast palaces which his slaves had erected for him with their own hands.

7 This pharaoh had two sons, of whom the younger was called Mossa. Learned Israelites taught him diverse sciences.

8 And they loved Mossa in Egypt for his goodness and the compassion which he showed to all those who suffered.

9 Seeing that the Israelites would not, in spite of the intolerable sufferings they were enduring, abandon their God to worship those made by the hand of man, which were gods of the Egyptian nation,

10 Mossa believed in their invisible God, who did not let their failing strength give way.

11 And the Israelitish preceptors excited the ardor of Mossa and had recourse to him, praying him to intercede with the pharaoh his father in favor of their co-religionists.

12 Wherefore the Prince Mossa went to his father, begging him to ameliorate the fate of these unfortunates. But the pharaoh became angered against him and only augmented the torments endured by his slaves.

13 It happened that a short time after, a great evil visited Egypt. The pestilence came to decimate there both the young and the old, the weak and the strong; and the pharaoh believed in the resentment of his own gods against him.

14 But the Prince Mossa told his father that it was the God of his slaves who was interceding in favor of these unfortunates in punishing the Egyptians.

15 The pharaoh then gave to Mossa his son an order to take all the slaves of the Jewish race, to conduct them outside the town, and to found at a great distance from the capital another city where he should dwell with them.

16 Mossa then made known to the Hebrew slaves that he had set them free in the name of their God, the God of Israel, and he went out with them from the city and from the land of Egypt.

17 He led them into the land they had lost by their many sins, he gave unto them laws, and enjoined them to pray always to the invisible Creator whose goodness is infinite.

18 On the death of Prince Mossa, the Israelites rigorously observed his laws, wherefore God recompensed them for the ills to which he had exposed them in Egypt.

19 Their kingdom became the most powerful of all the earth, their kings made themselves famous for their treasures, and a long peace reigned among the people of Israel.

CHAPTER III

1 The glory of the riches of Israel spread throughout the earth, and the neighboring nations bore them envy.

2 For the Most High himself led the victorious arms of the Hebrews, and the pagans dared not attack them.

3 Unhappily, as man is not always true to himself, the fidelity of the Israelites to their God did not last long.

4 They began by forgetting all the favors which he had heaped upon them, invoked but seldom his name, and sought the protection of magicians and sorcerers.

5 The kings and the captains substituted their own laws for those which Mossa had written down for them. The temple of God and the practice of worship were abandoned. The people gave themselves up to pleasure and lost their original purity.

6 Several centuries had elapsed since their departure from Egypt when God determined to exercise once more his chastisements upon them.

7 Strangers began to invade the land of Israel, devastating the country, ruining the villages, and carrying the inhabitants into captivity.

8 And there came at one time pagans from the country of Romeles, on the other side of the sea. They subdued the Hebrews and established among them military leaders who by delegation from Caesar ruled over them.

9 They destroyed the temples, they forced the inhabitants to cease worshipping the invisible God, and compelled them to sacrifice victims to the pagan deities.

10 They made warriors of those who had been nobles, the women were torn away from their husbands, and the lower classes, reduced to slavery, were sent by thousands beyond the seas.

11 As to the children, they were put to the sword. Soon in all the land of Israel naught was heard but groans and lamentations.

12 In this extreme distress, the people remembered their great God. They implored his grace and besought him to forgive them; and our Father, in his inexhaustible mercy, heard their prayer.

CHAPTER IV

1 At this time came the moment when the all-merciful Judge elected to become incarnate in a human being.

2 And the Eternal Spirit, dwelling in a state of complete inaction and of supreme beatitude, awoke and detached itself for an indefinite period from the Eternal Being,

3 So as to show forth in the guise of humanity the means of self-identification with Divinity and of attaining to eternal felicity,

4 And to demonstrate by example how man may attain moral purity and, by separating his soul from its mortal coil, the degree of perfection necessary to enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is unchangeable and where happiness reigns eternal.

5 Soon after, a marvelous child was born in the land of Israel, God himself speaking by the mouth of this infant of the frailty of the body and the grandeur of the soul.

6 The parents of the newborn child were poor people, belonging by birth to a family of noted piety, who, forgetting their ancient grandeur on earth, praised the name of the Creator and thanked him for the ills with which he saw fit to prove them.

7 To reward them for not turning aside from the way of truth, God blessed the firstborn of this family. He chose him for his elect and sent him to help those who had fallen into evil and to cure those who suffered.

8 The divine child, to whom was given the name of Issa, began from his earliest years to speak of the one and indivisible God, exhorting the souls of those gone astray to repentance and the purification of the sins of which they were culpable.

9 People came from all parts to hear him, and they marveled at the discourses proceeding from his childish mouth. All the Israelites were of one accord in saying that the Eternal Spirit dwelt in this child.

10 When Issa had attained the age of thirteen years, the epoch when an Israelite should take a wife,

11 The house where his parents earned their living by carrying on a modest trade began to be a place of meeting for rich and noble people, desirous of having for a son-in-law the young Issa, already famous for his edifying discourses in the name of the Almighty.

12 Then it was that Issa left the parental house in secret, departed from Jerusalem, and with the merchants set out towards Sind,

13 With the object of perfecting himself in the Divine Word and of studying the laws of the great Buddhas.

CHAPTER V

1 In the course of his fourteenth year, the young Issa, blessed of God, came on this side of Sind and established himself among the Aryas in the land beloved of God.

2 Fame spread the reputation of this marvelous child throughout the length of northern Sind, and when he crossed the country of the five rivers and the Rajputana, the devotees of the god Jaine prayed him to dwell among them.

3 But he left the erring worshippers of Jaine and went to Juggernaut in the country of Orissa, where repose the mortal remains of Vyasa-Krishna and where the white priests of Brahma made him a Joyous welcome.

4 They taught him to read and understand the Vedas, to cure by aid of prayer, to teach, to explain the holy scriptures to the people, and to drive out evil spirits from the bodies of men, restoring unto them their sanity.

5 He passed six years at Juggernaut, at Rajagriha, at Benares, and in the other holy cities. Everyone loved him, for Issa lived in peace with the Vaisyas and the Sudras, whom he instructed in the holy scriptures.

6 But the Brahmans and the Kshatriyas told him that they were forbidden by the great Para-Brahma to come near to those whom he had created from his side and his feet;

7 That the Vaisyas were only authorized to hear the reading of the Vedas, and this on festival days only;

8 That the Sudras were forbidden not only to assist at the reading of the Vedas, but also from contemplating them, for their condition was to serve in perpetuity as slaves to the Brahmans, the Kshatriyas, and even the Vaisyas.

9 "'Death only can set them free from their servitude' has said Para-Brahma. Leave them then and come and worship with us the gods, who will become incensed against thee if thou cost disobey them."

10 But Issa listened not to their discourses and betook him to the Sudras, preaching against the Brahmans and the Kshatriyas.

11 He inveighed against the act of a man arrogating to himself the power to deprive his fellow beings of their rights of humanity; "for," said he, "God the Father makes no difference between his children; all to him are equally dear."

12 Issa denied the divine origin of the Vedas* and the Puranas. "For," taught he to his followers, "a law has already been given to man to guide him in his actions;

13 "Fear thy God, bend the knee before him only, and bring to him alone the offerings which proceed from thy gains."

14 Issa denied the Trimurti and the incarnation of Para-Brahma in Vishnu, Siva, and other gods, for said he:

15 "The Judge Eternal, the Eternal Spirit, comprehends the one and indivisible soul of the universe, which alone creates, contains, and vivifies all. *Inasmuch as Jesus' closest disciple, John, begins his Gospel with a quote from the Vedas, "In the beginning was the Word . . . ," the authenticity of this passage may be questioned. See p. 393 for discussion.

16 "He alone has willed and created, he alone has existed since all eternity, and his existence will have no end. He has no equal either in the heavens or on earth.

17 "The Great Creator has not shared his power with any living being, still less with inanimate objects, as they have taught to you; for he alone possesses omnipotence.

18 "He willed it and the world appeared. In a divine thought, he gathered together the waters, separating from them the dry portion of the globe. He is the principle of the mysterious existence of man, in whom he has breathed a part of his Being.

19 "And he has subordinated to man the earth, the waters, the beasts, and all that he has created and that he himself preserves in immutable order, fixing for each thing the length of its duration.

20 "The anger of God will soon be let loose against man; for he has forgotten his Creator, he has filled his temples with abominations, and he worships a crowd of creatures which God has made subordinate to him.

21 "For to do honor to stones and metals, he sacrifices human beings, in whom dwells a part of the spirit of the Most High.

22 "For he humiliates those who work by the sweat of their brow to acquire the favor of an idler seated at his sumptuous board.

23 "Those who deprive their brethren of divine happiness shall be deprived of it themselves. The Brahmans and the Kshatriyas shall become the Sudras, and with the Sudras the Eternal shall dwell everlastingly.

24 "Because in the day of the last judgment the Sudras and the Vaisyas will be forgiven much because of their ignorance, while God, on the contrary, will punish with his wrath those who have arrogated to themselves his rights."

25 The Vaisyas and the Sudras were filled with great admiration and asked Issa how they should pray so as not to lose their eternal felicity.

26 "Worship not the idols, for they hear you not. Listen not to the Vedas, for their truth is counterfeit. Never put yourself in the first place and never humiliate your neighbor.

27 "Help the poor, support the weak, do ill to no one, and covet not that which thou hast not and which thou seest belongeth to another."

CHAPTER VI

1 The white priests and the warriors, becoming acquainted with the discourses of Issa addressed to the Sudras, resolved upon his death and sent with this intent their servants to seek out the young prophet.

2 But Issa, warned of his danger by the Sudras, left the neighborhood of Juggernaut by night, reached the mountain, and established himself in the country of Gautamides, the birthplace of the great Buddha Sakyamuni, in the midst of a people worshipping the one and sublime Brahma.

3 After having perfected himself in the Pali language, the just Issa applied himself to the study of the sacred writings of the Sutras.

4 Six years after, Issa, whom the Buddha had elected to spread his holy word, had become a perfect expositor of the sacred writings.

5 Then he left Nepal and the Himalayan mountains, descended into the valley of Rajputana, and went towards the west, preaching to diverse peoples the supreme perfection of man,

6 Which is-to do good to one's neighbor, being the sure means of merging oneself rapidly in the Eternal Spirit: "He who shall have regained his original purity," said Issa, "will die having obtained remission for his sins, and he will have the right to contemplate the majesty of God."

7 In crossing pagan territories, the divine Issa taught that the worship of visible gods was contrary to the law of nature.

8 "For man," said he, "has not been permitted to see the image of God, and yet he has made a host of deities in the likeness of the Eternal.

9 "Moreover, it is incompatible with the human conscience to make less matter of the grandeur of divine purity than of animals and objects executed by the hand of man in stone or metal.

10 "The Eternal Lawgiver is one; there is no other God but he. He has not shared the world with anyone, neither has he informed anyone of his intentions.

11 "Even as a father would act towards his children, so will God judge men after their deaths according to the laws of his mercy. Never would he so humiliate his child as to transmigrate his soul, as in a purgatory, into the body of an animal."

12 "The heavenly law," said the Creator by the mouth of Issa, "is opposed to the immolation of human sacrifices to an image or to an animal; for I have consecrated to man all the animals and all that the earth contains.

13 "All things have been sacrificed to man, who is directly and intimately associated with me his Father; therefore he who shall have stolen from me my child will be severely judged and chastised by the divine law.

14 "Man is naught before the Eternal Judge, as the animal is naught before man.

15 "Wherefore I say unto you, Leave your idols and perform not rites which separate you from your Father, associating you with the priests from whom the heavens have turned away.

16 "For it is they who have led you from the true God and whose superstitions and cruelties conduce to the perversion of your soul and the loss of all moral sense."

CHAPTER VII

1 The words of Issa spread among the pagans in the midst of the countries he traversed, and the inhabitants forsook their idols.

2 Seeing which the priests exacted of him who glorified the name of the true God, reason in the presence of the people for the reproaches he made against them and a demonstration of the nothingness of their idols.

3 And Issa made answer to them: "If your idols and your animals are powerful and really possessed of supernatural strength, then let them strike me to the earth."

4 "Work then a miracle," replied the priests, "and let thy God confound our gods, if they inspire him with contempt."

5 But Issa then said: "The miracles of our God have been worked since the first day when the universe was created; they take place every day and at every moment. Whosoever seeth them not is deprived of one of the fairest gifts of life.

6 "And it is not against pieces of stone, metal, or wood, which are inanimate, that the anger of God will have full course; but it will fall on men, who, if they desire their salvation, must destroy all the idols they have made.

7 "Even as a stone and a grain of sand, naught as they are in the sight of man, wait patiently the moment when he shall take and make use of them,

8 "So man must await the great favor that God shall accord him in his final judgment.

9 "But woe unto you, ye enemies of men, if it be not a favor that you await but rather the wrath of the Divinity-woe unto you if ye expect miracles to bear witness to his power.

10 "For it will not be the idols that he will annihilate in his anger but those who shall have erected them. Their hearts shall be consumed with eternal fire, and their lacerated bodies shall go to satiate the hunger of wild beasts.

11 "God will drive the impure from among his flocks, but he will take back to himself those who shall have gone astray through not having recognized the portion of spirituality within them."

12 Seeing the powerlessness of their priests, the pagans had still greater faith in the sayings of Issa and, fearing the anger of the Divinity, broke their idols to pieces. As for the priests, they fled to escape the vengeance of the populace.

13 And Issa further taught the pagans not to strive to see the Eternal Spirit with their eyes but to endeavor to feel him in their hearts and by purity of soul to render themselves worthy of his favors.

14 "Not only," said he unto them, "abstain from consuming human sacrifices, but immolate no creature to whom life has been given, for all things that exist have been created for the profit of man.

15 "Do not steal the goods of your neighbor, for that would be to deprive him of what he has acquired by the sweat of his brow.

16 "Deceive no one, so as not to be yourselves deceived. Endeavor to justify yourself before the last judgment, for then it will be too late.

17 "Do not give yourselves up to debauchery, for that would be to violate the laws of God.

18 "You shall attain to supreme happiness, not only in purifying yourselves, but also in guiding others in the way that shall permit them to gain original perfection."

CHAPTER VIII

1 The neighboring countries resounded with the prophecies of Issa, and when he entered into Persia the priests became alarmed and forbade the inhabitants to listen to him.

2 And when they saw all the villages welcoming him with joy and listening devoutly to his sermons, they gave orders to arrest him and had him brought before the high priest, where he underwent the following interrogation:

3 "Of what new God cost thou speak? Art thou not aware, unhappy man, that Saint Zoroaster is the only just one admitted to the privilege of communion with the Supreme Being,

4 "Who ordered the angels to put down in writing the word of God for the use of his people, laws that were given to Zoroaster in paradise?

5 "Who then art thou to dare here to blaspheme our God and to sow doubt in the hearts of believers?"

6 And Issa said unto them: "It is not of a new God that I speak but of our Heavenly Father, who has existed since all time and who will still be after the end of all things.

7 "It is of him that I have discoursed to the people, who, like unto innocent children, are not yet capable of comprehending God by the simple strength of their intelligence or of penetrating into his divine and spiritual sublimity.

8 "But even as a babe discovers in the darkness its mother's breast, so even your people, who have been led into error by your erroneous doctrine and your religious ceremonies, have recognized by instinct their Father in the Father of whom I am the prophet.

9 "The Eternal Being has said to your people through the medium of my mouth: 'You shall not worship the sun, for it is but a part of the world which I have created for man.

10 "'The sun rises in order to warm you during your work; it sets to allow you the repose which I myself have appointed.

11 "'It is to me, and to me alone, that you owe all that you possess, all that is to be found about you, above you, and below you."'

12 "But," said the priests, "how could a people live according to the rules of justice if it had no preceptors?"

13 Then Issa answered, "So long as the people had no priests, the natural law governed them, and they preserved the candor of their souls.

14 "Their souls were with God, and to commune with the Father they had recourse to the medium of no idol or animal, nor to the fire, as is practiced here.

15 "You contend that one must worship the sun, the spirit of good and of evil. Well, I say unto you, your doctrine is a false one, the sun acting not spontaneously but according to the will of the invisible Creator who gave it birth

16 "And who has willed it to be the star that should light the day, to warm the labor and the seedtime of man.

17 "The Eternal Spirit is the soul of all that is animate. You commit a great sin in dividing it into a spirit of evil and a spirit of good, for there is no God outside the good,

18 "Who, like unto the father of a family, does but good to his children, forgiving all their faults if they repent them.

19 "The spirit of evil dwells on the earth in the hearts of those men who turn aside the children of God from the strait path.

20 "Wherefore I say unto you, Beware of the day of judgment, for God will inflict a terrible chastisement upon all those who shall have led his children astray from the right path and have filled them with superstitions and prejudices;

21 "Those who have blinded them that see, conveyed contagion to the healthy, and taught the worship of the things that God has subordinated to man for his good and to aid him in his work.

22 "Your doctrine is therefore the fruit of your errors; for desiring to bring near to you the God of truth, you have created for yourselves false gods."

23 After having listened to him, the magi determined to do him no harm. But at night, when all the town lay sleeping, they conducted him outside of the walls and abandoned him on the high road, in the hope that he would soon become a prey to the wild beasts.

24 But, protected by the Lord our God, Saint Issa continued his way unmolested.

CHAPTER IX

1 Issa, whom the Creator had elected to remind a depraved humanity of the true God, had reached his twenty-ninth year when he returned to the land of Israel.

2 Since his departure the pagans had inflicted still more atrocious sufferings on the Israelites, who were a prey to the deepest despondency.

3 Many among them had already begun to abandon the laws of their God and those of Mossa in the hope of appeasing their savage conquerors.

4 In the face of this evil, Issa exhorted his compatriots not to despair because the day of the redemption of sins was at hand, and he confirmed them in the belief which they had in the God of their fathers.

5 "Children, do not give yourselves up to despair," said the Heavenly Father by the mouth of Issa, "for I have heard your voice, and your cries have reached me.

6 "Do not weep, O my beloved ones! For your grief has touched the heart of your Father, and he has forgiven you, even as he forgave your forefathers.

7 "Do not abandon your families to plunge yourselves into debauchery, do not lose the nobility of your feelings, and do not worship idols who will remain deaf to your voices.

8 "Fill my temple with your hope and with your patience and abjure not the religion of your fathers; for I alone have guided them and have heaped them with benefits.

9 "You shall lift up those who have fallen, you shall give food to the hungry, and you shall come to the aid of the sick, so as to be all pure and just at the day of the last judgment which I prepare for you."

10 The Israelites came in crowds at the word of Issa, asking him where they should praise the Heavenly Father, seeing that the enemy had razed their temples to the ground and laid low their sacred vessels.

11 And Issa made answer to them that God had not in view temples erected by the hands of man, but he meant that the human heart was the true temple of God.

12 "Enter into your temple, into your heart. Illumine it with good thoughts and the patience and immovable confidence which you should have in your Father.

13 "And your sacred vessels, they are your hands and your eyes. See and do that which is agreeable to God, for in doing good to your neighbor you accomplish a rite which embellishes the temple wherein dwells he who gave you life.

14 "For God has created you in his own likeness-innocent, with pure souls and hearts filled with goodness, destined not for the conception of evil schemes but made to be sanctuaries of love and justice.

15 "Wherefore I say unto you, sully not your hearts, for the Supreme Being dwells therein eternally.

16 "If you wish to accomplish works marked with love or piety, do them with an open heart and let not your actions be governed by calculations or the hope of gain.

17 "For such actions would not help to your salvation, and you would fall into that state of moral degradation where theft, lying, and murder pass for generous deeds."

CHAPTER X

1 Saint Issa went from one town to another, strengthening by the word of God the courage of the Israelites, who were ready to succumb to the weight of their despair; and thousands of men followed him to hear him preach.

2 But the chiefs of the towns became afraid of him, and they made known to the principal governor who dwelt at Jerusalem that a man named Issa had arrived in the country; that he was stirring up by his discourses the people against the authorities; that the crowd listened to him with assiduity, neglected the works of the state, and affirmed that before long it would be rid of its intrusive governors.

3 Then Pilate, governor of Jerusalem, ordered that they should seize the person of the preacher Issa, that they should bring him into the town and lead him before the judges. But in order not to excite the anger of the populace, Pilate charged the priests and the learned Hebrew elders to judge him in the temple.

4 Meanwhile Issa, continuing his preachings, arrived at Jerusalem; and, having learnt of his arrival, all the inhabitants, knowing him already by reputation, went out to meet him.

5 They greeted him respectfully and opened to him the gates of their temple in order to hear from his mouth what he had said in the other cities of Israel.

6 And Issa said unto them: "The human race perishes because of its lack of faith, for the darkness and the tempest have scattered the flocks of humanity and they have lost their shepherds.

7 "But the tempest will not last forever, and the darkness will not always obscure the light. The sky will become once more serene, the heavenly light will spread itself over the earth, and the flocks gone astray will gather around their shepherd.

8 "Do not strive to find straight paths in the darkness, lest ye fall into a pit; but gather together your remaining strength, support one another, place your confidence in your God, and wait till light appears.

9 "He who sustains his neighbor, sustains himself; and whosoever protects his family, protects the people and the state.

10 "For be sure that the day is at hand when you shall be delivered from the darkness; you shall be gathered together as one family; and your enemy, who ignores what the favor of God is, shall tremble with fear."

11 The priests and the elders who were listening to him, filled with admiration at his discourse, asked him if it were true that he had tried to stir up the people against the authorities of the country, as had been reported to the governor Pilate.

12 "Can one excite to insurrection men gone astray, from whom the obscurity has hidden their door and their path?" replied Issa. "I have only warned the unfortunate, as I do here in this temple, that they may not further advance along the darkened way, for an abyss is open under their feet.

13 "Earthly power is not of long duration, and it is subject to many changes. Of what use that man should revolt against it, seeing that one power always succeeds to another power? And thus it will come to pass until the extinction of humanity.

14 "Against which, see you not that the mighty and the rich sow among the sons of Israel a spirit of rebellion against the eternal power of heaven?"

15 The elders then asked: "Who art thou, and from what country cost thou come? We have not heard speak of thee before, and we know not even thy name."

16 "I am an Israelite," replied Issa. "From the day of my birth I saw the walls of Jerusalem, and I heard the weeping of my brothers reduced to slavery and the lamentations of my sisters who were carried away by the pagans.

17 "And my soul was filled with sadness when I saw that my brethren had forgotten the true God. As a child, I left my father's house and went to dwell among other peoples.

18 "But having heard that my brethren were suffering still greater tortures, I have come back to the country where my parents dwell to remind my brothers of the faith of their forefathers, which teaches us patience on earth to obtain perfect and sublime happiness in heaven."

19 And the learned elders put him this question: "It is said that thou deniest the laws of Mossa and that thou teaches" the people to forsake the temple of God?"

20 And Issa replied: "One cannot demolish that which has been given by our Heavenly Father, neither that which has been destroyed by sinners; but I have enjoined the purification of the heart from all blemish, for it is the true temple of God.

21 "As to the laws of Mossa, I have endeavored to establish them in the hearts of men. And I say unto you that you do not understand their real meaning, for it is not vengeance but mercy that they teach; only the sense of these laws has been perverted."

CHAPTER XI

1 Having hearkened unto Issa, the priests and the wise elders decided among themselves not to judge him, for he did harm to no one. And presenting themselves before Pilate, appointed governor of Jerusalem by the pagan king of the country of Romeles, they addressed him thus:

2 "We have seen the man whom thou accusest of inciting our people to rebellion; we have heard his discourses, and we know him to be our compatriot.

3 "But the chiefs of the cities have made thee false reports, for this is a just man who teaches the people the word of God. After having interrogated him, we dismissed him, that he might go in peace."

4 The governor then became enraged and sent near to Issa his servants in disguise, so that they might watch all his actions and report to the authorities the least word that he should address to the people.

5 In the meantime, Saint Issa continued to visit the neighboring towns, preaching the true ways of the Creator, exhorting the Hebrews to patience, and promising them a speedy deliverance.

6 And during all this time, many people followed him wherever he went, several never leaving him but becoming his servitors.

7 And Issa said: "Do not believe in miracles wrought by the hand of man, for he who dominates over nature is alone capable of doing that which is supernatural, whilst man is powerless to stay the anger of the winds or to spread the rain.

8 "Nevertheless, there is one miracle which it is possible for man to accomplish. It is when, full of a sincere belief, he decides to root out from his heart all evil thoughts, and when to attain his end he forsakes the paths of iniquity.

9 "And all the things that are done without God are but errors, seductions, and enchantments, which only demonstrate to what an extent the soul of him who practices this art is full of shamelessness, falsehood, and impurity.

10 "Put not your faith in oracles; God alone knows the future: he who has recourse to diviners profanes the temple which is in his heart and gives a proof of distrust towards his Creator.

11 "Faith in diviners and in their oracles destroys the innate simplicity of man and his childlike purity. An infernal power takes possession of him, forcing him to commit all sorts of crimes and to worship idols;

12 "Whereas the Lord our God, who has no equal, is one, all-mighty, omniscient, and omnipresent. It is he who possesses all wisdom and all light.

13 "It is to him you must address yourselves to be consoled in your sorrows, helped in your works, and cured in your sickness. Whosoever shall have recourse to him shall not be denied.

14 "The secret of nature is in the hands of God. For the world, before it appeared, existed in the depth of the divine thought; it became material and visible by the will of the Most High.

15 "When you address yourselves to him, become again as children; for you know neither the past, the present, nor the future, and God is the Master of all time."

CHAPTER XII

1 "Righteous man," said unto him the spies of the governor of Jerusalem, "tell us if we shall perform the will of our Caesar or await our speedy deliverance. "

2 And Issa, having recognized them as people appointed to follow him, replied: "I have not said to you that you shall be delivered from Caesar. It is the soul plunged in error that shall have its deliverance.

3 "As there can be no family without a head, so there can be no order among a people without a Caesar; to him implicit obedience should be given, he alone being answerable for his acts before the supreme tribunal."

4 "Does Caesar possess a divine right?" further asked of him the spies. "And is he the best of mortals?"

5 "There should be no better among men, but there are also sufferers, whom those elected and charged with this mission should care for, making use of the means conferred on them by the sacred law of our Heavenly Father.

6 "Mercy and justice are the highest attributes of a Caesar; his name will be illustrious if he adhere to them.

7 "But he who acts otherwise, who exceeds the limit of power that he has over his subordinates, going so far as to put their lives in danger, offends the great Judge and loses his dignity in the sight of man."

8 At this juncture, an old woman who had approached the group, the better to hear Issa, was pushed aside by one of the spies, who placed himself before her.

9 Then Issa held forth: "It is not meet that a son should set aside his mother, taking her place. Whosoever respecteth not his mother, the most sacred being after his God, is unworthy of the name of son.

10 "Listen, then, to what I say unto you: Respect woman, for she is the mother of the universe, and all the truth of divine creation lies in her.

11 "She is the basis of all that is good and beautiful, as she is also the germ of life and death. On her depends the whole existence of man, for she is his natural and moral support.

12 "She gives birth to you in the midst of suffering. By the sweat of her brow she rears you, and until her death you cause her the gravest anxieties. Bless her and worship her, for she is your one friend, your one support on earth.

13 "Respect her, uphold her. In acting thus you will win her love and her heart. You will find favor in the sight of God and many sins shall be forgiven you.

14 "In the same way, love your wives and respect them; for they will be mothers tomorrow, and each later on the ancestress of a race.

15 "Be lenient towards woman. Her love ennobles man, softens his hardened heart, tames the brute in him, and makes of him a lamb.

16 "The wife and the mother are the inappreciable treasures given unto you by God. They are the fairest ornaments of existence, and of them shall be born all the inhabitants of the world.

17 "Even as the God of armies separated of old the light from the darkness and the land from the waters, woman possesses the divine faculty of separating in a man good intentions from evil thoughts.

18 "Wherefore I say unto you, after God your best thoughts should belong to the women and the wives, woman being for you the temple wherein you will obtain the most easily perfect happiness.

19 "Imbue yourselves in this temple with moral strength. Here you will forget your sorrows and your failures, and you will recover the lost energy necessary to enable you to help your neighbor.

20 "Do not expose her to humiliation. In acting thus you would humiliate yourselves and lose the sentiment of love, without which nothing exists here below.

21 "Protect your wife, in order that she may protect you and all your family. All that you do for your wife, your mother, for a widow or another woman in distress, you will have done unto your God."

CHAPTER XIII

1 Saint Issa taught the people of Israel thus for three years, in every town, in every village, by the waysides and on the plains; and all that he had predicted came to pass.

2 During all this time the disguised servants of Pilate watched him closely without hearing anything said like unto the reports made against Issa in former years by the chiefs of the towns.

3 But the governor Pilate, becoming alarmed at the too great popularity of Saint Issa, who according to his adversaries sought to stir up the people to proclaim him king, ordered one of his spies to accuse him.

4 Then soldiers were commanded to proceed to his arrest, and they imprisoned him in a subterranean cell where they tortured him in various ways in the hope of forcing him to make a confession which should permit of his being put to death.

5 The saint, thinking only of the perfect beatitude of his brethren, supported all his sufferings in the name of his Creator.

6 The servants of Pilate continued to torture him and reduced him to a state of extreme weakness; but God was with him and did not allow him to die.

7 Learning of the sufferings and the tortures which their saint was enduring, the high priests and the wise elders went to pray the governor to set Issa at liberty in honor of an approaching festival.

8 But the governor straightway refused them this. They then prayed him to allow Issa to appear before the tribunal of the ancients so that he might be condemned or acquitted before the festival, and to this Pilate consented.

9 The next day the governor assembled together the chief captains, priests, wise elders, and lawyers so that they might judge Issa.

10 They brought him from his prison and seated him before the governor between two thieves to be judged at the same time as he, in order to show unto the crowd that he was not the only one to be condemned.

11 And Pilate, addressing himself to Issa, said unto him: "O man! is it true that thou incites" the people against the authorities with the intent of thyself becoming king of Israel?"

12 "One becomes not king at one's own will," replied Issa, "and they have lied who have told thee that I stir up the people to rebellion. I have never spoken of other than the King of Heaven, and it is he I teach the people to worship.

13 "For the sons of Israel have lost their original purity; and if they have not recourse to the true God, they will be sacrificed and their temple shall fall into ruins.

14 "As temporal power maintains order in a country, I teach them accordingly not to forget it. I say unto them: 'Live conformably to your station and your fortune, so as not to disturb the public order.' And I have exhorted them also to remember that disorder reigns in their hearts and in their minds.

15 "Wherefore the King of Heaven has punished them and suppressed their national kings. Nevertheless, I have said unto them, 'If you become resigned to your destinies, as a reward the kingdom of heaven shall be reserved for you."'

16 At this moment, the witnesses were brought forward, one of whom made the following deposition: "Thou hast said to the people that the temporal power is as naught against that of the king who shall soon deliver the Israelites from the pagan yoke."

17 "Blessed art thou," said Issa, "for having spoken the truth. The King of Heaven is greater and more powerful than the terrestrial law, and his kingdom surpasses all the kingdoms of the earth.

18 "And the time is not far off when, conforming to the divine will, the people of Israel shall purify them of their sins; for it has been said that a forerunner will come to proclaim the deliverance of the people, gathering them into one fold."

19 And the governor, addressing himself to the judges, said: "Doss hear? The Israelite Issa confesses to the crime of which he is accused. Judge him, then, according to your laws, and pronounce against him capital punishment."

20 "We cannot condemn him," replied the priests and the elders. "Thou hast just heard thyself that his allusions were made regarding the King of Heaven and that he has preached naught to the sons of Israel which could constitute an offense against the law."

21 The governor Pilate then sent for the witness who, at his instigation, had betrayed Issa. The man came and addressed Issa thus: "Didst thou not pass thyself off as the king of Israel when thou saddest that he who reigns in the heavens had sent thee to prepare his people?"

22 And Issa, having blessed him, said: "Thou shalt be pardoned, for what thou sayest does not come from thee!" Then, addressing himself to the governor: "Why humiliate thy dignity, and why teach thy inferiors to live in falsehood, as without doing so thou hast power to condemn the innocent?"

23 At these words the governor became exceeding wroth, ordering the sentence of death to be passed upon Issa and the acquittal of the two thieves.

24 The judges, having consulted together, said unto Pilate: "We will not take upon our heads the great sin of condemning an innocent man and acquitting thieves. That would be against the law.

25 "Do then as thou wilt." Saying which the priests and the wise elders went out and washed their hands in a sacred vessel, saying: "We are innocent of the death of this just man."

CHAPTER XIV

1 By the order of the governor, the soldiers then seized Issa and the two thieves, whom they led to the place of execution, where they nailed them to crosses erected on the ground.

2 All the day the bodies of Issa and the two thieves remained suspended, terrible to behold, under the guard of the soldiers; the people standing all around, the relations of the sufferers praying and weeping.

3 At sunset the sufferings of Issa came to an end. He lost consciousness, and the soul of this just man left his body to become absorbed in the Divinity.

4 Thus ended the earthly existence of the reflection of the Eternal Spirit under the form of a man who had saved hardened sinners and endured many sufferings.

5 Meanwhile, Pilate became afraid of his action and gave the body of the saint to his parents, who buried it near the spot of his execution. The crowd came to pray over his tomb, and the air was filled with groans and lamentations.

6 Three days after, the governor sent his soldiers to carry away the body of Issa to bury it elsewhere, fearing otherwise a popular insurrection.

7 The next day the crowd found the tomb open and empty. At once the rumor spread that the supreme Judge had sent his angels to carry away the mortal remains of the saint in whom dwelt on earth a part of the Divine Spirit.

8 When this rumor reached the knowledge of Pilate, he became angered and forbade anyone, under the pain of slavery and death, to pronounce the name of Issa or to pray the Lord for him.

9 But the people continued to weep and to glorify aloud their Master; wherefore many were led into captivity, subjected to torture, and put to death.

10 And the disciples of Saint Issa abandoned the land of Israel and scattered themselves among the heathen, preaching that they should renounce their errors, bethink them of the salvation of their souls and of the perfect felicity awaiting humanity in that immaterial world of light where, in repose and in all his purity, the Great Creator dwells in perfect majesty.

11 The pagans, their kings, and their warriors listened to the preachers, abandoned their absurd beliefs, and forsook their priests and their idols to celebrate the praise of the all-wise Creator of the universe, the King of kings, whose heart is filled with infinite mercy.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 it is said: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, He was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”

Paul claims Christ died for our sins "According to the Scriptures." The Corinthians were Europeans, not Jews; like the bulk of Christianity today. They took his word that the unspecified "Scriptures" did indeed say such things. Not surprisingly, Jews never anticipated a crucified Mashiach, nor a King who was sent to atone for the sins of others through a barbaric, PAGAN notion of human sacrifice.

As we have seen, YES Jesus was "risen" but NO he did not die. Paul is exactly right, if Christ did not die on that cross, if he was not an atoning blood sacrifice for your sins after which he was brought back to life, then your Christian faith is in vain. If that did not happen, if Jesus's heart was still pumping blood after it was thought that he was dead. If he was wrapped not in a burial shroud but in medicines and bandages, then the Christian faith is nothing but vanity.

Proving there is no blood atonement

The issue of Qur’anic teachings on the crucifixion, "death," resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ, are often at the same time the most pivotal aspects of a Christian to Muslim inter-faith dialogue, and the most diversely interpreted of Ayaat (miraculous verses), and Ahadith; the oral teachings of Muhammad. The reasons behind this stem from both multiple possibilities in translations, and insinuated literary interpretations of Ayaat referring to Jesus. As well this can also be attributed to the natural Islamic tendency to shy as far away as possible from the misinterpretations – and occasional outright perversions – of otherwise authentic Islamic teachings of the "Nazirenes."

Before delving into the meaning of Qur’anic passages focusing on the crucifixion, and Ascent of Jesus nearly 2,000 years ago, we must firstly address why modern Christianity holds such topics of theological debate to be so important for doctrinal unity and – more specifically – for salvation and Celestial entrance into Paradise itself. For regardless of whether or not any given Muslim is aware of the most accurate translation of Ayat relaying the Truth of Jesus' crucifixion and the like, doctrinal divergence on this issue is more semantics than anything else.

Many Christians and Muslim contend that the Qur’an teaches that the crucifixion never occurred. While just as many Muslims hold varying interpretations of that view, Christianity holds this controversy as one of the chief points of contention with the Ummah or "Islamic Community." Why is this such a pivotal issue with Christians. For if one person believed that Jesus was crucified and did not remain in the grave, and another person believes he avoided the crucifixion altogether, then essentially why must this be such a faith shattering issue to Christians?

The reason stems from one of the basic differences between the Hellenistic tradition and that of Islam. Christianity has traditionally – since the Hellenized perversions of the Nazirene Message of Islam – held pagan parallel’s between the torture of Jesus and the purported redemption of sin through the taking of an innocent life. In modern times, it has become cornerstone to Christianity that bloodshed must occur in order to cleanse us of our sins; even though this antiquated perception was completely abrogated by the Prophets centuries before Jesus Christ was even born.

Christian apologists and missionaries assert that the only way a person can obtain atonement for sins is via the blood of a sacrificial offering, through the shedding of blood. Consequently, since all humanity is, according to Christian theology, infected with Adam and Eve's "Original Sin," only the blood of the sinless Jesus can have the power of the ransom that is required to overcome the sinful mortal nature of mankind. In other words, they claim that the shed blood of Jesus in his crucifixion had paid for the sins of those who accept him as their "lord and savior" – he allegedly took on the sins of mankind and died for them on the cross as a sacrificial offering. Did Jesus say such things? Certainly not, but Jesus also did not call his followers "Christians," he called them "Mushlam" and in the Dead Sea Scrolls they are referred to as those who Submit. Jesus was a Muslim. Only the followers of Paul were "Christians."

Another way this claim is often presented by Christian apologists and missionaries is that the "Old Testament" (in the Christian Bible) prescribes the shedding of blood as a requirement for the atonement of sins, without which the expiation of sins is not possible. Consequently, when the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E., Jews were left without the required system for atonement, and God, out of his love for mankind, had provided a blood atonement to replace the animal sacrifices via the death of "His only begotten son," Jesus, on the cross. Of course it has already been amply demonstrated through many examples that others were previously referred to as the first and only begotten sons of God. We know that Jesus was not the "son of God" as it is contrary to the faculties of basic reason to believe that the Creator of the Universe sexually "reproduces" (that is creates another god or demi-god), within the Creation. Likewise, we know that this is illogical and contrary to the implications of this term "son of God" since Jesus was not the first to be referred to by this allegorical terminology.

The common Biblical reference cited in support of the claim that the shedding of blood is required for the atonement of sins is the following portion of a verse in the Christian "Old Testament."

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life." Leviticus 17:11

כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר, בַּדָּם הִוא, וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, לְכַפֵּר עַל-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם: כִּי-הַדָּם הוּא, בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר.

Conveniently, the portion that Christians are notorious for quoting out of context is the phrase: "…for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul."

The apparent message contained in this portion of the verse is echoed on several occasions in the New Testament. A superficial reading of only this isolated verse in Leviticus, without studying the entire passage and placing it in its proper context, will almost certainly lead one to conclude that only in being covered by the blood of Jesus on the cross can one be forgiven for sins.

So where does this Christian presumption originate? Not surprisingly, it is from Paul, and Paul alone.

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22

kai scedon en aimati panta kaqarizetai kata ton nomon, kai cwriV aimatekcusiaV ou ginetai afesiV.

Leviticus 17:11 is part of a passage that deals with the prohibition on the consumption of blood. When this verse is considered in its entirety, it becomes evident that a specific statement concerning blood is conveyed. Namely, that the blood of the sacrifice must be placed "…upon the altar to atone for your souls…" That is, the only way blood was claimed to bring atonement is if placed on the altar in the Temple - this is a requirement for sin/guilt offerings. The question begging to be asked here is: "Was the blood of Jesus sprinkled on the altar as specified in Leviticus 17:11?"

The New Testament is silent about this requirement. There is no evidence offered in the New Testament that the blood of Jesus was placed on the altar in the Temple, which was still standing in Jerusalem at the alleged time of his death. Of course to date no Christian has been foolish enough to even suggest that this might have been a possibility. Christians know good and well that this requirement went unmet. Therefore, the fact that this requirement was not satisfied invalidates the claim that the death of Jesus provided atonement for any sins. In other words, even if one believes erroneously that blood atones for since, the death of Jesus did not effect the remission of sins since it was not placed on the altar in the Temple.

Moreover, another issue that Christians are silent on is that THREE different methods of atonement are identified in the Hebrew Bible: animal or grain sacrifices, contrite repentance and prayer, and charitable deeds. The Torah speaks of two kinds of animal sacrifices that were used for the atonement of transgressions – a sin sacrifice "chataat" (חַטָּאת) which is itself from the root word meaning "Sin" or "transgression" (חָטָא), and a guilt sacrifice "asham" (אָשָׁם). The chataat, a "sin sacrifice" not a "guilt sacrifice," did not provide atonement for every kind of sin. Rather, its purpose was to atone only for a person’s unintentional sins - the most insignificant type of transgression:

"And if a person sins inadvertently, then he shall offer a female goat in its first year as a sin offering (חַטָּאת) And the priest shall atone for the erring person who sinned inadvertently before YHWH in order to make atonement on his behalf; and it shall be forgiven him." Numbers 15:27-28

וְאִם-נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת, תֶּחֱטָא בִשְׁגָגָה--וְהִקְרִיבָה עֵז בַּת-שְׁנָתָהּ, לְחַטָּאת. וְכִפֶּר הַכֹּהֵן, עַל-הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַשֹּׁגֶגֶת בְּחֶטְאָה בִשְׁגָגָה--לִפְנֵי יְהוָה: לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו, וְנִסְלַח לוֹ.

The requirements concerning chataat, a sin sacrifice, are specified in Leviticus 4:1-35, where these offerings are declared mandatory, and that their purpose was to atone for sins committed unwittingly. Chataat was inappropriate for the atonement of a sin that was committed with intent. The willful sinner was barred from the Sanctuary, and had to bear his own iniquity because of his rebellious intent to sin against God. As it is written:

"And the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is a native born or a stranger, that person blasphemes YHWH; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has scorned the Word of YHWH, and has violated his commandment, that person shall surely be cut off, for his iniquity is upon him." Numbers 15:30-31

וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר-תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּיָד רָמָה, מִן-הָאֶזְרָח וּמִן-הַגֵּר--אֶת-יְהוָה, הוּא מְגַדֵּף; וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּהּ.  כִּי דְבַר-יְהוָה בָּזָה, וְאֶת-מִצְוָתוֹ הֵפַר; הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, עֲו‍ֹנָה בָהּ.

The Levitical Law of Sacrifice specifies that some transgressions committed with intent mandated the "asham" guilt sacrifice. The requirements concerning "asham" a guilt sacrifice, are specified in Leviticus 5:14-26, where these offerings are declared obligatory for such offenses as robbery and misappropriation of Temple property, where restitution also had to be made.

Since the above two categories do not include all possible sins, it follows that no sacrificial offerings were mandated for all other (remaining) transgressions - all those sins not covered by either khataat or asham. Clearly, there had to exist some means, other than sacrifices, to obtain atonement for such sins. Some examples from the Hebrew Bible, where atonement is achieved without the shedding of blood, will demonstrate this concept.

The first example concerns a requirement connected with a census. Whenever a census was taken of those able-bodied men 20 years of age and older, who were fit for military service, every adult Israelite was required to pay a 1/2-sheqel:

"When you take a census of the people of Israel according to their numbers, then they shall each give a ransom ("kofer," כֹּפֶר) for his soul to YHWH when you count them, so that there will be no plague among them when you count them. This they shall give, everyone who is among those being counted: half a sheqel according to the holy sheqel; twenty gerah are one sheqel; one half of the sheqel shall be an offering to YHWH. Everyone who is among those who being counted, from [the age of] twenty years old and above, shall give an offering to YHWH." Sh'mot (Exodus) 30:12-14

כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת-רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לִפְקֻדֵיהֶם, וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ לַיהוָה, בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף, בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם. זֶה יִתְּנוּ, כָּל-הָעֹבֵר עַל-הַפְּקֻדִים--מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל, בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ: עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה, הַשֶּׁקֶל--מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל, תְּרוּמָה לַיהוָה. כֹּל, הָעֹבֵר עַל-הַפְּקֻדִים, מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וָמָעְלָה--יִתֵּן, תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה.

The Hebrew noun "kofer" (כֹּפֶר), meaning "ransom," appears on three other occasions in the Torah (Exodus 21:30; Numbers 35:31,32), and in each case refers to the money paid by someone who is guilty of taking a human life under circumstances that do not necessarily constitute "murder" (that is "negligent homicide and the like). This term is from the same root as "kafar" (כָּפַר) meaning "one who rejects truth after being told it," or one who denies their own guilt. This is identical to the Qur'anic term "kafir" which essentially means the same thing, "one who disbelieves."

Thus, the owner of the ox that killed a person after the owner had received warnings that the animal was dangerous, was charged with the death of a person; but, since his crime was not intentional or premeditated, he was permitted to pay a "kofer," a ransom (Exodus 21:30). The payment of "kofer" was forbidden for a deliberate act of murder (Numbers 35:31,32), such as the reported murder of "Steven" in Luke's account of Acts, which says "Saul (Paul) was consenting to his death" and tells of the murderers laying their coats at the feet of this "kafar" Paul. Put simply, according to the Torah, Paul's sins COULD NOT be "ransomed" by blood sacrifice.

Another example concerns the requirements for the atonement of such sins as being a false witness and then confessing to it, or being ritually unclean and entering the Sanctuary inadvertently, and then realizing what happened and confessing to it (Leviticus 5:1-13). These sins required an offering that was not named in the Torah, and to which the Jewish Sages referred as a variable offering ("qorban oleh veyored"), literally, a sliding scale offering that depended on one's financial means (for example see Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shevu'ot, 3a).

The top level on the sliding scale - a female lamb or goat (blood sacrifice). This was not based on the "quality" of forgiveness being greater due to an animal being killed. It was based on the fact that the more expensive the food one could afford, this they were required to give.

"And he shall bring his guilt offering to YHWH for his sin which he committed, a female from the flock, either a sheep or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin." Vayikra (Leviticus) 5:6

וְהֵבִיא אֶת-אֲשָׁמוֹ לַיהוָה עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא נְקֵבָה מִן-הַצֹּאן כִּשְׂבָּה, אוֹ-שְׂעִירַת עִזִּים--לְחַטָּאת; וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן, מֵחַטָּאתוֹ.

The next level, the intermediate level. on the sliding scale was a pair of turtledoves or young pigeons. The key here is NOT that it was a "blood sacrifice," but that it was LESS COSTLY than lamb or goat. Somehow Christianity has missed this point that has never been in question within the Judaic or Islamic contexts.

"And if he cannot afford a sheep, he who sinned shall bring as his guilt offering two turtle doves or two young pigeons before YHWH, one for a sin offering, and one for a burnt offering. And he shall sprinkle from the blood of the sin offering on the wall of the altar, and the remainder of the blood shall be pressed out onto the base of the altar; it is a sin offering. And he shall offer up the second one as a burnt offering, according to the Law; and the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin which he had committed, and he shall be forgiven." Vayikra (Leviticus) 5:7,9-10

וְאִם-לֹא תַגִּיעַ יָדוֹ, דֵּי שֶׂה--וְהֵבִיא אֶת-אֲשָׁמוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא שְׁתֵּי תֹרִים אוֹ-שְׁנֵי בְנֵי-יוֹנָה, לַיהוָה: אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת, וְאֶחָד לְעֹלָה. וְהִזָּה מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת, עַל-קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם, יִמָּצֵה אֶל-יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; חַטָּאת, הוּא. וְאֶת-הַשֵּׁנִי יַעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה, כַּמִּשְׁפָּט; וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר-חָטָא, וְנִסְלַח לוֹ.

At the bottom economic level of the "sliding scale" was a certain weight of fine flour. In contradistinction from the Christian dogma that "blood atonement" was necessary, this sacrifice was clearly a non-blood offering. However, the relevant point was not that this was or wasn't "blood" but that IT WAS THE LEAST COSTLY. We are told that this is the point in Vayikra (Leviticus) 5:11-13: "And if he cannot afford two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then he who sinned shall bring as his offering one tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it, nor shall he place frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering. He shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall scoop out a fistful as a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, upon the fires of YHWH; it is a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement for him from his sin which he had committed in any one of these [instances], and he shall be forgiven; and [the rest of] it shall belong to the priest, like the meal offering."

וְאִם-לֹא תַשִּׂיג יָדוֹ לִשְׁתֵּי תֹרִים, אוֹ לִשְׁנֵי בְנֵי-יוֹנָה--וְהֵבִיא אֶת-קָרְבָּנוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא עֲשִׂירִת הָאֵפָה סֹלֶת, לְחַטָּאת; לֹא-יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן, וְלֹא-יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה--כִּי חַטָּאת, הִוא.  וֶהֱבִיאָהּ, אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן, וְקָמַץ הַכֹּהֵן מִמֶּנָּה מְלוֹא קֻמְצוֹ אֶת-אַזְכָּרָתָהּ וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה, עַל אִשֵּׁי יְהוָה; חַטָּאת, הִוא.וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן עַל-חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר-חָטָא, מֵאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה--וְנִסְלַח לוֹ; וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן, כַּמִּנְחָה. 

We see clearly that it is written "the priest shall make atonement for him" with this non-blood offering, and "he will be forgiven." Imagine that! Forgiveness for sins without shedding a drop of blood, right there in the Bible all along!

Jesus himself said that he came not to abolish the Torah and the Nevi'im, but to fulfill them. So what do the Torah and the Nevi'im say on this matter?

"With what shall I come before YHWH and bow down before the Exalted Elohai? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will YHWH be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does YHWH require of you? To act justly and to love Mercy and to walk humbly with the YHWH-Eloheka." Mikhah (Micah) 6:6-8

בַּמָּה אֲקַדֵּם יְהוָה, אִכַּף לֵאלֹהֵי מָרוֹם; הַאֲקַדְּמֶנּוּ בְעוֹלוֹת, בַּעֲגָלִים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה. הֲיִרְצֶה יְהוָה בְּאַלְפֵי אֵילִים, בְּרִבְבוֹת נַחֲלֵי שָׁמֶן; הַאֶתֵּן בְּכוֹרִי פִּשְׁעִי, פְּרִי בִטְנִי חַטַּאת נַפְשִׁי. הִגִּיד לְךָ אָדָם, מַה טּוֹב; וּמָה יְהוָה דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ, כִּי אִם עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד, וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת, עִם אֱלֹהֶיךָ

As the Prophet Mikhah noted, burnt offerings were not what YHWH desired from us.

"In that day, [the Messianic Age], declares YHVH, ‘You will call me ‘my husband’ (literally "my man" or "ishi"); you will no longer call me ‘my Master.’ I will remove the names of the ba'alim, (masters), from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety.’" Hoshea (Hosea) 2:18

וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם-הַהוּא נְאֻם-יְהוָה, תִּקְרְאִי אִישִׁי; וְלֹא-תִקְרְאִי-לִי עוֹד, בַּעְלִי. וַהֲסִרֹתִי אֶת-שְׁמוֹת הַבְּעָלִים, מִפִּיהָ; וְלֹא-יִזָּכְרוּ עוֹד, בִּשְׁמָם.וְכָרַתִּי לָהֶם בְּרִית, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, עִם-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְעִם-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְרֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה; וְקֶשֶׁת וְחֶרֶב וּמִלְחָמָה אֶשְׁבּוֹר מִן-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִשְׁכַּבְתִּים לָבֶטַח.

"For I desire Mercy not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of YHWH rather than burnt offerings. But they like men have transgressed the covenant; there have they dealt treacherously against Me." Hosea 6:6-7

כִּי חֶסֶד חָפַצְתִּי, וְלֹא-זָבַח; וְדַעַת אֱלֹהִים, מֵעֹלוֹת.וְהֵמָּה, כְּאָדָם עָבְרוּ בְרִית; שָׁם, בָּגְדוּ בִי.

"They love sacrifice, they sacrifice flesh and eat it, but YHVH has no delight in them." Hosea 8:13

זִבְחֵי הַבְהָבַי, יִזְבְּחוּ בָשָׂר וַיֹּאכֵלוּ--יְהוָה, לֹא רָצָם; עַתָּה יִזְכֹּר עֲו‍ֹנָם, וְיִפְקֹד חַטֹּאותָם--הֵמָּה, מִצְרַיִם יָשׁוּבוּ.

God explains explicitly through the Prophet Hosea that Mercy and NOT sacrifice is what God desires. He refers to those who believe otherwise as having "dealt treacherously" AGAINST God Himself!

"I hate, I spurn your pilgrim feasts; I will not delight in your sacred ceremonies. When you present your sacrifices and offerings I will not accept them, nor look on the buffaloes of your shared offerings. Spare me the sound of your songs; I cannot endure the music of your lutes." Amos 5:21-23

שָׂנֵאתִי מָאַסְתִּי, חַגֵּיכֶם; וְלֹא אָרִיחַ, בְּעַצְּרֹתֵיכֶם. כִּי אִם תַּעֲלוּ לִי עֹלוֹת וּמִנְחֹתֵיכֶם, לֹא אֶרְצֶה; וְשֶׁלֶם מְרִיאֵיכֶם, לֹא אַבִּיט. הָסֵר מֵעָלַי, הֲמוֹן שִׁרֶיךָ; וְזִמְרַת נְבָלֶיךָ, לֹא אֶשְׁמָע

God says He HATES these sacrificial feasts, and should the Children of Israel make these barbaric sacrifices for atonement He "WILL NOT ACCEPT THEM!"

"The reek of sacrifice is abhorrent to me" Isaiah 1:13

לֹא תוֹסִיפוּ, הָבִיא מִנְחַת שָׁוְא--קְטֹרֶת תּוֹעֵבָה הִיא, לִי; חֹדֶשׁ וְשַׁבָּת קְרֹא מִקְרָא, לֹא אוּכַל אָוֶן וַעֲצָרָה.

Abhorrent; God says that not only does sacrificial bloodshed NOT atone for sin, but that these sacrifices are "abhorrent" things unto YHWH. So again, why was the "blood of Jesus" needed? The answer is simple: it was not needed.

"There is blood on your hands; wash yourselves and be clean." Isaiah 1:15-16

וּבְפָרִשְׂכֶם כַּפֵּיכֶם, אַעְלִים עֵינַי מִכֶּם--גַּם כִּי תַרְבּוּ תְפִלָּה, אֵינֶנִּי שֹׁמֵעַ: יְדֵיכֶם, דָּמִים מָלֵאוּ. רַחֲצוּ, הִזַּכּוּ--הָסִירוּ רֹעַ מַעַלְלֵיכֶם, מִנֶּגֶד עֵינָי: חִדְלוּ, הָרֵעַ

Christian friends, please wash your hands of the blood of Jesus and be clean.

"If Christ is not risen, our faith is in vain!"

"Declare and bring them near, yes, let them take counsel together: Who has announced this from ancient time, and declared it of old? Have not I YHWH? And there is Nothing, only Me; the righteous Elohim and Savior; There is Nothing, only Me. Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the Earth; For I am El (God), and there is no other." Isaiah 45:21-22

 הַגִּידוּ וְהַגִּישׁוּ, אַף יִוָּעֲצוּ יַחְדָּו: מִי הִשְׁמִיעַ זֹאת מִקֶּדֶם מֵאָז הִגִּידָהּ, הֲלוֹא אֲנִי יְהוָה וְאֵין-עוֹד אֱלֹהִים מִבַּלְעָדַי--אֵל-צַדִּיק וּמוֹשִׁיעַ, אַיִן זוּלָתִי.פְּנוּ-אֵלַי וְהִוָּשְׁעוּ, כָּל-אַפְסֵי-אָרֶץ: כִּי אֲנִי-אֵל, וְאֵין עוֹד.

Paul said: "If Christ is not risen, our faith is in vain!" We Muslims are not in dispute about this matter. We do not doubt that "Christ is risen." In fact, the Qur'an tells us that Jesus Christ has said in Sura 19:33 that "I shall be raised up to life (again)." No, rather we do not believe that this man, this Prophet of God, this Anointed, this Mashiach, this Masih, this Messiah, this Christ of God ever died in the first place when the Bible tells us he was placed up on that cross.

If Jesus Christ was not killed up on that cross, then the four gospels are null and void. The story of Christianity is all together false, and that cannot be accepted by Christians. If you are a Christian, to accept that means that the very foundation of your life is in error. Convincing a person of such a matter is not an easy task, in fact it is impossible in most cases regardless of the evidence against their belief system. However God Almighty says through the Angelic Messenger Gabriel, to the Prophet Muhammad that the burden is on you, not on me.

"And if We had pleased, We would certainly have exalted him (Balaam son of Be'or) thereby; but he clung to the earth and followed his low desire. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him he lolls out his tongue or if you leave him alone he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject our signs; so relate the story; perchance they may reflect." Al-Qur'an, Sura 7:176

i am instructed only to "Argue in the best of ways (Qur'an 16:125)," to reason with you and provide you with evidence. If you chose contradiction over infallibility, then it is you who will be called to answer for this on the Day of Judgment, the Day when Jesus Christ tells us:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the Will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you, depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.'" Matthew 7:21-23

ou paV o legwn moi, kurie kurie, eiseleusetai eiV thn basileian twn ouranwn, all o poiwn to qelhma tou patroV mou tou en toiV ouranoiV. polloi erousin moi en ekeinh th hmera, kurie kurie, ou tw sw onomati eprofhteusamen, kai tw sw onomati daimonia exebalomen, kai tw sw onomati dunameiV pollaV epoihsamen; kai tote omologhsw autoiV oti oudepote egnwn umaV: apocwreite ap emou oi ergazomenoi thn anomian.

Here Jesus says himself that "he who DOES," he who is a "DOER" of the Law, like the so-called "Essenes," the "Ossim" or "Doers" of God's Torah. These "Doers" of God's Will are who Jesus will accept and welcome into Paradise, while those who say "Lord, Lord" and speak of "miracles" performed "In the name of Jesus," but did not "DO" the Will of God, will be cast into the Fire whose fuel is men and stones.

These are those who claim exemption from the Law, from the Torah that Jesus Christ said he did not come to abolish one letter from. The Torah that he said he came not to destroy but to fulfill. Those who claim that circumcision is not necessary, those who eat the flesh of swine. Did Jesus Christ ever tell you to do that? Then why do you do it? Why do you call a man "weak" who will not eat the flesh of an animal sacrificed to an idol, an idol! Who is your Messiah? It is Jesus or is it Paul? These two have told you contradictory things and again Paul's only claim to authority is that we should take his word that he saw the "Ghost of Jesus" on the road to Damascus, where he was going to kill, or persecute the pre-Christian followers of Jesus Christ, Yashuah Ha'Mashiach.

Paul tells us that we are saved only through "faith." We Muslims say that we are saved through the Grace, the Compassion and Mercy of Allah. We are Saved by following what Jesus Christ said when he said "Go and sin no more" and "Be perfect therefore as your Father in Heaven is Perfect." That is what we Muslims believe. We do not believe that the Messiah would tell us to do something that we are not capable, through the strengthening of God, of doing. Would a God of Justice condemn His Creation that he tells us He loves, for simply not doing something that they were created with the inability to do? Of course not! We were created for perfection!

The Bible tells us: "For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." However, we know that "believing in him" means believing in his Prophethood, his Anointing by God, and following his righteous teachings. It does not mean believing in what Paul would later ascribe to him. "I tell you, No: but, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish." Luke 13:5

ouci, legw umin, all ean mh metanohte panteV wsautwV apoleisqe.

God informs us of His Criterion for forgiveness. "If My people, which are called by My Name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my Face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14

וְיִכָּנְעוּ עַמִּי אֲשֶׁר נִקְרָא-שְׁמִי עֲלֵיהֶם, וְיִתְפַּלְלוּ וִיבַקְשׁוּ פָנַי, וְיָשֻׁבוּ, מִדַּרְכֵיהֶם הָרָעִים--וַאֲנִי, אֶשְׁמַע מִן-הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֶסְלַח לְחַטָּאתָם, וְאֶרְפָּא אֶת-אַרְצָם.

No mention is made of any "begotten" offspring of God, nor of any human sacrifice, nor of God coming down in human flesh to save the world. It is strange to imagine that this would have been "the Plan" since before Creation, yet God always neglected to mention it to the Children of Israel. Or if mention was made of it as the Christians claim, then it was under such an impermeable veil ambiguity that no one could possibly discern such an interpretation until well after the event of what the Council of Nicea claimed happened at Golgotha.

"He that says, 'I know him,' and does not keep his Commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:4

o legwn oti egnwka auton, kai taV entolaV autou mh thrwn, yeusthV estin, kai en toutw h alhqeia ouk estin:

Paul claimed that he "knew him," but while Jesus said "Whosoever breaks the least of these Commandments and teaches others to do the same will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven," and while the Disciple John said if one says they "know him" and do not keep his Commandments, his Mitzvot, then he is a LIAR, exactly as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community called Paul! Paul taught that not just one or two of the Commandments of the Torah had been abrogated, but that the ENTIRE Torah had been "abolished" by Jesus Christ.

Is it any wonder why scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls claim that the figure referred to only as "the Liar" was Paul! Is it any wonder why throughout his own writings he repeated over and over, the mantra of "i do not lie, i say again, i do not lie." Who was Paul responding to? Was it James who wrote him so many letters contradictory to his own? Was it James, or Ya'aqov, the Brother of Jesus Christ, the author of the Book of James which states nearly verbatim Islamic theology as delineated later in the Qur'an?

There is a Multi-Trillion dollar business in making sure that these questions are not asked, let alone answered. Remember that you were forewarned that "even the elect might be deceived," meaning that even those who love and try their best to follow Christ might still be deceived by the Liar and by the antichrists who have come in the name of Jesus but are the furthest thing from him.

Now why might the so-called "Essene" (עושים) community have called Paul "the Liar." Why might James the Brother of Jesus have accused him of this? Paul convicts himself by his own words:

"To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law - though not being myself under the law - that I might win those under the Law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law - not being without law toward Allah but under the law of Christ - that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Corinthians 9:20-22

kai egenomhn toiV ioudaioiV wV ioudaioV, ina ioudaiouV kerdhsw: toiV upo nomon wV upo nomon, mh wn autoV upo nomon, ina touV upo nomon kerdhsw: toiV anomoiV wV anomoV, mh wn anomoV qeou all ennomoV cristou, ina kerdanw touV anomouV: egenomhn toiV asqenesin asqenhV, ina touV asqeneiV kerdhsw: toiV pasin gegona panta, ina pantwV tinaV swsw.

Paul said, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) shall be saved." Romans 10:13

paV gar oV an epikaleshtai to onoma kuriou swqhsetai.

Yet again, Jesus Christ said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of Allah, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of iniquity ("anomian" anomian literally "lawlessness").'" Matthew 7:21-23

ou paV o legwn moi, kurie kurie, eiseleusetai eiV thn basileian twn ouranwn, all o poiwn to qelhma tou patroV mou tou en toiV ouranoiV. polloi erousin moi en ekeinh th hmera, kurie kurie, ou tw sw onomati eprofhteusamen, kai tw sw onomati daimonia exebalomen, kai tw sw onomati dunameiV pollaV epoihsamen; kai tote omologhsw autoiV oti oudepote egnwn umaV: apocwreite ap emou oi ergazomenoi thn anomian.

So you know, my Christian brothers and sisters, this is why we accept Jesus but vomit out Paul, his admitted lies, lawlessness, and Trinitarian dogma that runs contrary to natural human reason.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27

ta probata ta ema thV fwnhV mou akouousin, kagw ginwskw auta, kai akolouqousin moi,

As Muslims we long to follow Jesus Christ upon the Straight Path, the Path to Perfection. We do not want a cheap substitute. We do not want a self-appointed Antichrist who contradicted our Prophet and Messiah's every teaching. If Jesus did not eat swine flesh then we do not want a liar who tells us to go ahead and eat it. If Jesus did not eat food sacrificed to idols then neither should we, nor will we accept one who does. If Jesus was circumcised and never abrogated even one "Yod" from the Torah, then we will absolutely refuse any imposter who comes along from Asia Minor, from an allegedly Jewish parent raised entirely in Greek Pagan culture, telling us that a ghost of a man (who was not dead), came and commissioned him to spread teachings that contradicted the words of Jesus Christ in every imaginable way.

In the Kerygmata Petrou - an Apocryphal text of the sermons of Peter - under the heading "Polemic against Paul" it says:

"But apparition not merely presents an object to view, but inspires him who sees it with confidence, for it comes from God. Now reply first to this." And Peter said: ". . . We know that there are many . . . who worship idols, commit adultery, and sin in every way, and yet they see true visions and dreams, and some of them have also apparitions of demons. For I maintain that the eyes of mortals cannot see the incorporeal form of the Father or Son, because it is illumined by exceeding great light. Wherefore it is not because God envies, but because He pities, that He cannot be seen by man who has been turned into flesh. For he who sees God cannot live. . . . For no one can see the incorporeal power not only of the Son, but not even of an angel. But if one sees an apparition, he should know that this is the apparition of an evil demon."

Neither Islam nor the Tanakh teaches that ("Mala'ikah" in `Arabic or "Malakhim" in Hebrew) are "Spirits" any more than we ourselves have spirits as part of our whole. Angels are spiritual beings, just as we human beings are. However, so too do they have physicality, just as we see throughout the Judeo-Islamic traditions. The Mala'ikah are described in Sefer Ha'Berashit, the Book of Genesis as appearing in corporeal form that homosexuals at S'dom and `Amorah actually thought were human beings. There was no transparency, there was not spooky mist rising off of them. The Angel Gabriel is a being of the Malaki species, not a ghost.

Surely the utter contradiction between "Christianity" founded by Paul, and "Hashlamah," Equanimity, Peace-Making, Balancing-out, (from the consonantal Hebrew root of "Shalom"), or in `Arabic "Islam" - Submission to the Will of God, (from tthe consonantal root of "Salaam") that Jesus Christ taught us has been demonstrated. However, there have been so many, many lies that the theologian businessmen have told you from birth, that this sort of extensive writing is necessary for you to understand why it is that Muslims reject this myth of God having an offspring who comes to earth to die for the crimes of others. i understand your position and theology. i understand it, have studied it, and absolutely reject it. Now it is time for you to understand Islam, literally "Submission to God." 

Crime and Punishment

According to Christianity, the plan of salvation is through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If this did not happen, but was MADE TO APPEAR to the enemies of Jesus Christ that he died, then that changes everything. For one, it throws into question the notion of his omnipotence, which he never once attributed to himself. As well it utterly abases the notion that the nature of mankind is sin, and that no matter what mankind is a sinner and needs an innocent man to be betrayed, tortured and murdered for some warped sense of justice to be fulfilled.

Let us think about this matter, is God a Being of Justice, or of injustice? You would of course say "the God of Justice." Upon this matter we are in agreement. So imagine for a moment that there is a pedophile priest molesting children at your church or parish. Now instead of him being sent to jail, castrated or killed, the parent of one of the victims says "No, this wicked man will not be punished. It is not merely that i will forgive him, because someone must pay the price for his crimes. So instead i will offer my son, who was molested, to be murdered in the most horrible of ways." Does this sound like justice? Does this even sound rational or good? No! This sound insane and CRIMINAL at best. First of all, the guilty party should first repent and then be forgiven if the parent so desired to forgive him. However, there is no reason imaginable why "some one must die" for the sins of the pedophile priest. Why must someone die? It only makes sense if we step outside of the modern world and the reason and scientific knowledge that our species have amassed, and instead think like a backwards, pagan culture who is obsessed with bloodshed, human sacrifice, and the like.

Strip away all of your religious dogma. Paul says in the Book of Romans that the truth of Allah is self-evident "for all to see" even "through the creation" telling us "so that men are without excuse." So what is the "self-evident" reason behind this? Where in creation can we look and see that this is the Law, the Torah of the Creator? My Christian friends, i have indeed looked. i have looked throughout creation and i cannot find one example where something like this must happen, let alone should happen. Please also tell me where in the Bible Jesus Christ - the master, the teacher, the "Rabbi" in Hebrew - spoke of such doctrine of bloodshed atoning for sin?

This does not even begin to touch on the fact that there are literally dozens of "Apocryphal" Gospels that say the exact opposite. Sefer Ha'Basar, the earliest Hebrew Gospel, says "Bloodshed does not atone for transgression." How strange. How strange that in 325 C.E. the Council of Nicea disregarded all of these Books, just as they disregarded the Book of Revelation until a few hundred years ago when Protestantism accepted it, much to the contrary of their Jew-hating founder Martin Luther's beliefs concerning the truth of this Book.

In this age and in ages past, mankind has cowered from the idea of paying the price for his iniquities. When a man or woman commits a crime he is put in jail to await Judgment. If the crime is a small crime he will usually be let out on his own recognizance. If the crime is a little worse, then he may have to pay a small bail to get out. As the severity of the crime increase he will have to pay more for his bail, often putting his house up, or paying the bail on credit. This is because the Judge is no fool. He knows that if this man committed such a serious crime he will often likely flee from the consequences of his actions just like a young man who impregnates a girl and then leaves her to bear and raise the child on her own! So the Judge takes steps to make certain that the man does not get out of his obligation to be held personally accountable for his crimes.

This is the state of man. He will run away from penalty and consequence. When he breaks the Covenant with God then he will try to run and hide. This is what the Torah, in Sefer Ha'Berashit tells us of Adam and Havvah (Eve). It says that when YHWH Elohim came to seek them out they hid from them due to their eyes being opened to their nakedness. This is the state of man, the naked coward, running from the Judgment for his crimes.

So naturally it was not a hard sell for Paul to tell the Roman people that they did not have to face Judgment. According to their belief all they needed to do was "believe." How nice. How convenient for the lawless Roman people: Do not worry, 'O Romans, do not worry about following this complicated Torah of the B'nei Yisrael (Children of Israel)! Do not worry about their 613 Mitzvot! All you have to do is believe! Just like Peter Pan. Just believe. Isn't that nice? No more hiding your nakedness in caves, an innocent man was slaughtered and then raised to life just long enough to get sucked up into the sky. So eat flesh sacrificed to idols. Don't worry about cleanliness. Leave the foreskin on your penis! No problem. The gods have sent their son down from Mt. Olympus to allow you license to do whatever you want and never be held accountable for it. This is not the Justice of God. Far be it from Him to convict an innocent man for the crimes of the guilty! This is not the Justice of YHWH! In such a case the penalty has not been paid!

If a man rapes a child and his neighbor is convicted of the crime in his place, then there is no Justice! The innocent man has paid the price for a heinous crime of his neighbor. The guilty still walks among the free! No! In such a case there is no Justice until the guilty is brought to Judgment!

Jesus Christ, or rather Rabbi Yashuah Ha'Mashiach never taught such Hellenistic, pagan concepts. He taught in his Basar that "Bloodshed does not atone for transgression." He taught against sacrifice of innocent animals for the Chet (חֵטְא) just as did the prophets who came before him and were killed. He taught against it in Y'hudah, in Greece, in Rome, in Egypt, in Spain, in Meso-America, in India. He taught the very opposite of what is attributed to him. May those who take away from Rabbi Yashuah Ha'Mashiach's words have their B'rakah taken away from them. And may those who attribute false and vain words of their own imagination to Rabbi Yashuah Ha'Mashiach have suffering and punishment attributed to them in the Hereafter. And YHWH is quick to hold the transgressor accountable for their lies and disbelief!

All praise is due to YHWH, Halleluyah! Rabbi Yashuah Ha'Mashiach has said no such things as what the "itching ears" of the hypocrites and parasites have longed to hear him say. He said, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny his nefesh (lower ego-self) and take up his cross and follow me." Mark 8:34

kai proskalesamenoV ton oclon sun toiV maqhtaiV autou eipen autoiV, ei tiV qelei opisw mou akolouqein, aparnhsasqw eauton kai aratw ton stauron autou kai akolouqeitw moi.

What he meant was, that "as i carry my responsibility, you carry yours. As i pray, you pray. As i fast. you fast: as i'm circumcised, you be circumcised, what i do, you do. Deny your lower ego-centric reality and follow me upon this Path to Perfection. You carry your own responsibility. "Go and sin no more" (John 8:1-11)." This is the meaning of taking up your own cross, not attempting to get a free ticket into Heaven by riding on his.

These are the words of your Rabbi! This is the Devar Ha'Eloah, the Word of God. Did not Mashiach say in Matthew 5:48: "Therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Shamayim is Perfect."

The Hebrew word for equanimity is "Hashlamah" (השלמה) which is directly related to the word for Peace or "Shalom" (שלום) and the word for Completeness or "Shlemut" (שלמות).
 
In English, "Equanimity" derives from the Latin word "aequus" meaning balanced, and "animus" meaning spirit or internal state. This is the Faith of ALL Prophets, from Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus Christ).
 
We see this same concept of Peace, Equanimity and Perfection continued in the words of Jesus Christ when he taught:
 
"The Student (Talmid, תלמיד) is not above his Teacher (Rabbi, רב): but everyone that is Perfect (Mushlam, משלם) shall be as his Teacher (Rabbi, רב)."
 
אין תלמיד נעלה על רבו שכן כל אדם שמשלם יהיה כרבו

Are these not his words?

Would your Rabbi ask of you that which is impossible? No of course not! YHWH, the One and the Only, is the Just; there is no injustice in Him. Injustice comes only from lack of Knowledge of Him, and forgetting of the Reality of Him. In Remembrance, Zachor of Him there is no injustice, for YHWH is Justice. Did Paul, the founder of Christianity, not say:

"The wrath of Allah is being revealed from heaven against all the Godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about Allah is plain to them, because Allah has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world Allah's invisible qualities - His Eternal Power and Divine Nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew Allah, they neither glorified him as Allah nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." Romans 1:18-21

apokaluptetai gar orgh qeou ap ouranou epi pasan asebeian kai adikian anqrwpwn twn thn alhqeian en adikia katecontwn, dioti to gnwston tou qeou faneron estin en autoiV: o qeoV gar autoiV efanerwsen. ta gar aorata autou apo ktisewV kosmou toiV poihmasin nooumena kaqoratai, h te aidioV autou dunamiV kai qeiothV, eiV to einai autouV anapologhtouV: dioti gnonteV ton qeon ouc wV qeon edoxasan h hucaristhsan, all emataiwqhsan en toiV dialogismoiV autwn kai eskotisqh h asunetoV autwn kardia.

Here we are told that those who are condemned to the Hellfire are "without excuse" because the "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His Eternal Power and Divine Nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made." So we are told that all that God requires of us to escape the Hellfire is what is part of the "Divine Nature" which is what has "been clearly seen... from what has been made." This is what Muhammad  told us as well. He said that "Islam" or "Hashlamah" in Hebrew is "fitrah" meaning that it is our original nature. YHWH requires nothing of us except what He has designed us to be and to do. Our nature is to "be perfect as [our] Father in Heaven is Perfect." If it was not so, surely your Rabbi Yashuah Ha'Mashiach would have told you.

Finally, know that Rabbi Yashuah Ha'Mashiach said: "Truly, truly, I say unto you, except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall by no means enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

This is Mashiach's message to you Christians! There is no heaven for you. This is what he says; these are his words. He says, it does not matter what you think you know about him, or on what great terms you have presumed yourself to be with him. For he, the Devar Ha'Eloah, the Kalimat'ullah, the Word of God, has spoken in Matthew 7:21-23 that "Not every one that says unto me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he that does the Will of my Father, in Heaven. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name?' And in your name have cast out devils? And in your name done many wonderful works?' And then will I profess unto them, 'I never knew you: depart from me, you workers of iniquity ("anomian" anomian literally "lawlessness").'"

ou paV o legwn moi, kurie kurie, eiseleusetai eiV thn basileian twn ouranwn, all o poiwn to qelhma tou patroV mou tou en toiV ouranoiV. polloi erousin moi en ekeinh th hmera, kurie kurie, ou tw sw onomati eprofhteusamen, kai tw sw onomati daimonia exebalomen, kai tw sw onomati dunameiV pollaV epoihsamen; kai tote omologhsw autoiV oti oudepote egnwn umaV: apocwreite ap emou oi ergazomenoi thn anomian.

This is what Jesus Christ has said. This is what his brother James said. This is what Muhammad said; that we are given Salvation though "Iman" (Faith) and through "Din" (Spiritual practice, works). One cannot truly exist without the other. This is why in the Book of James the Just we are told that: "Faith without works is dead."

This is the Din of Islam! This is the Din of Hashlamah! Unless you are better than the P'rushim, the Orthodox Jewish "Pharisees," there is no Pardes, no Paradise for you. Jesus said you must fast, just like the P'rushim fasted but on a higher level; a level rooted in Faith. He said, you must pray, just like the P'rushim prayed, so to must you, but on a higher level; a level rooted in Faith. He said, you must give Tzadaqah (Charity), just like the P'rushim gave Tzadaqah, so to must you, but on a higher level; a level rooted in Faith.

He did not say to you, that his blood would cover over your unrighteousness. No! These are the words of a fallible and deceitful individual and his manufactured, slave religion. Those are the words of Paul and individual who exchanged pagan mystery religion crucifixion myths in the place of the HISTORICAL Yashua, the historical `Isa. A man who persecuted the Maminim (Believers) who followed Rabbi Yashua Ha'Mashiach! When this man came bearing a message completely different than what `Isa al-Masih, Rabbi Yashua Ha'Mashiach said to us, that we have in black and white in Bibles all over the world, then we should decide who we are followers of. Who is our Nevi, our Prophet? Who is our Mashiach, the Christ? Is it Paul, or is it Rabbi Yashuah? For as Jesus Christ himself said:

"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." Luke 16:13

oudeiV oikethV dunatai dusi kurioiV douleuein: h gar ton ena mishsei kai ton eteron agaphsei, h enoV anqexetai kai tou eterou katafronhsei. ou dunasqe qew douleuein kai mamwna.

We Muslims agree. There is not room for both Jesus and Paul. One may claim to love and follow them both, but in actuality either the HISTORICAL Jesus will be followed or the HISTORICAL Paul will be followed. You cannot follow them both. You will, in truth, hate one and love the other. The choice is yours who to love and who to hate. Our love is for Jesus Christ, the Prophet of Islam, and the One and Only God who sent him.

If a fallible man comes along contradicting my Rabbi, who Ha'Eloah, Allah Almighty Anointed, and designated as a Prophet - whose actions were not corrupted and whose words were spoken in Perfection and without a hint of error - then by God, by Allah we must follow Rabbi Yashuah, Jesus, and reject the innovator. For in the words of the innovator is the suppression of the teachings of the Messiah.