| Chapter 1 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chapter
1: Christian-Muslim Dialogue "Come
now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD"
Isaiah 1:18 Christians believe that Jesus (pbuh) came
to teach all of mankind the religion of God and to show them the path to
salvation. All mankind is therefore required to follow his message and
only those who believe in the crucifixion and the redemption will be
saved. They believe that the Jews are also required to convert to
Christianity since Jesus was sent to them, therefore, they are the most
qualified people to recognize the word of God and the signs of Jesus (pbuh)
to be found in their own book. Most Jews, on the other hand, tell us
that Jesus (pbuh) was not a messenger of God, but rather a false
prophet, a sorcerer, an offspring of adulterers, and many other
allegations. They claim that there are no prophesies of Jesus (pbuh) in
their book and that he was not the promised Messiah/Christ (anointed
one). Their Messiah is yet to come. For this reason, they claim that
they are not required by God to follow Jesus (pbuh) and were justified
in killing him. Muslims believe in both Moses and Jesus (pbut)
as true prophets of God. We believe that both Moses and Jesus as well as
Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and all the rest of the prophets of God were all
truthful messengers as well as faithful and faultless servants of Allah
Almighty. We also believe in the miracles of Jesus (pbuh), including his
miraculous birth. Muslims believe that each time a messenger of God
would pass away, mankind would begin to slowly fall back upon their evil
deeds until they had managed to corrupt His original message. When this
would happen, God Almighty would send a new prophet to renew His
original message to these people and return them to the straight path.
In this manner, the true message of Allah would always be available to
all those who searched for it until the day of judgment. This can be
seen in the Bible in such verses as Matthew 5:17-18 we read: "Think not that I (Jesus) am come
to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled,
Fulfillment of Law of Moses." The Jews know God as "Elohiym" or
"Yahweh." The Christians know Him as "God," or
"Father," or "Jehovah," etc.. Muslims know him as
"Allah" (and more than 99 other venerable names). Muslims
believe that Allah Almighty did not send down many messages to mankind
but only one: The religion of submission to His will, the uniqueness of
Himself, and the knowledge that He is the only one worthy of worship.
The details of the religion were molded to suite each individual people,
but the message was one message: "Allah is One. Worship Him
alone!" This is made apparent in the verse of Aal-Umran(3):84 which
states that which means: "Say (O Muhammad): We believe in
Allah, and that which is sent down unto us, and that which was revealed
unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the sons of Jacob,
and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the Prophets from
their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them and unto Him we
have surrendered." Also, in Al-Nisaa(5):138 we read that which
means "O you who believe! Believe in
Allah and His messenger, and the Scripture (Qur'an) which he has
revealed unto His messenger, and the Scripture which He revealed
aforetime. Whosoever disbelieves in Allah and His angels and His
Scriptures and His messengers and the last day, he verily has wandered
far astray." Muslims are told in the Qur'an that the
unscrupulous few had managed to pervert the words of God Almighty sent
down to Jesus (pbuh) and the previous prophets after the passing of
their prophets. The well meaning masses were then misled by what was
claimed to be 100% the "inspiration" of God. The changes made
by these people have resulted in countless contradictions between the
verses. As we shall soon see, these contradictions and changes have been
well recognized and documented in the West for centuries now. However,
their actions have been excused because they are assumed to have been
well meaning and were only trying to clarify that which was obscure and
so forth when they changed the word of God (See chapter 2). Whatever
their motives, these apologists forget the command of Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word
which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye
may keep the commandments of the LORD your God." The liberties mankind has taken with God's
previous scriptures is one of the reasons why God sent down the Qur'an
as His last message to mankind and took it upon Himself this time to
personally preserve it for all time from corruption or modification Professor Arthur J. Arberry writes: "Apart from certain orthographical
modifications of the originally somewhat primitive method of writing,
intended to render unambiguous and easy the task of reading the
recitation, the Koran (Qur'an) as printed in the twentieth century is
identical with the Koran as authorized by Uthman more than 1300 years
ago." On the other hand, Mr. C.G. Tucker says: "...Thus Gospels were produced
which clearly reflected the conception of the practical needs of the
community for which they were written. In them the traditional material
was used, but there was no hesitation in altering it or making additions
to it, or in leaving out what did not serve the writer's purpose." "The history of the Christians in the
light of modern knowledge," C. G. Tucker, p. 320 Mr. C.J. Cadoux has the following to say in
his book "The life of Jesus" : "In the four Gospels, therefore,
the main documents to which we must go if we are to fill-out at all that
bare sketch which we can put together from other sources, we find
material of widely differing quality as regards credibility. So
far-reaching is the element of uncertainty that it is tempting to 'down
tools' at once, and to declare the task hopeless. The historical
inconsistencies and improbabilities in parts of the Gospels form some of
the arguments advanced in favor of the Christ-myth theory. These are,
however, entirely outweighed- as we have shown- by other considerations.
Still the discrepancies and uncertainties that remain are serious- and
consequently many moderns who have no doubt whatever of Jesus' real
existence, regard as hopeless any attempt to dissolve out of the
historically-true from the legendary or mythical matter which the
Gospels contain, and to reconstruct the story of Jesus' mission out of
the more historical residue." Reverend Dr. Davies says: "But to come to realities, no
serious modern scholar believes that the speeches appearing in the New
Testament are verbatim records of what the speaker said. Even as
conservative a scholar as Headlam has to admit that the speeches are 'in
a sense' - he does not say what sense - the author's 'own composition.'
... Schmidel, in his article on Acts in the Encyclopedia Biblica, says
unreservedly that 'it is without doubt that the author constructed [the
speeches] in each case according to his own conception of the
situation.' Schweitzer thinks the speeches in Acts may be 'based upon
traditions of speeches ... actually delivered, but in the form in which
we have them they doubtless belong to the author of Acts and are adapted
to his representation of the facts," Rev. Davies goes on to quote
Thucydides who admits that "..[assigning fictitious speeches to
Biblical characters] was the universal ancient custom." "The First Christian," Reverend
Dr. Davies, pp. 23-24 Prof. J.R. Drummelow says: "A copyist would sometimes put in
not what was in the text, but what he thought ought to be in it. He
would trust a fickle memory, or he would make the text accord with the
views of the school to which he belonged. In addition to the versions
and quotations from the Christian Fathers, nearly four thousand Greek
MSS of the Testament, were known to exist. As a result , the variety of
reading is considerable." "Commentary on the Holy Bible,"
page 16 Not long after my arrival in the United
States, I had the pleasure of meeting a Christian gentleman who shall
henceforth be referred to only as Mr. J. Unlike this lowly author, Mr.
J. is a "professional" Christian. He also has a history of
strong evangelical activity, at least with the Muslim students of our
university. Mr. J made himself known to us through written letters to
us, calls to our Muslim chaplain, and his appearance before us on other
occasions wherein he called upon us to believe in Jesus (pbuh) and to
accept his sacrifice. Mr. J. had sent our Muslim chaplain and myself
books with many allegations against the Qur'an and a general
condemnation of it. A series of friendly discussions ensued between us
and we have since come to know each other quite well and have managed to
remain friendly and outgoing towards one another even with our differing
beliefs. However, the fact that this author is not a professional
religious person or a professional preacher, but rather a simple science
student, has made it necessary to schedule these matters around other
more immediate scholarly concerns. It was first and foremost the will of
Allah, then the continuous efforts of Mr. J., his claims regarding
Islam, and his sincere efforts to convert me and grant me salvation
which compelled me to step up my research of the Bible and the Qur'an
and ultimately, publish this book. I therefore thank Allah Almighty that
he sent Mr. J. to me as a blessing from Himself for me, and hopefully
for many others. Before this book was written, I had
published a series of articles in a local publication which had been
progressing slowly from exhibiting some of the more minor examples of
human modification to the Bible, such as the fact that the authors of
the Bible are not who they claim to be, and had been working up to more
fundamental issues. Mr. J asked us to publish his counter viewpoint in
our publication and we accepted. Mr. J believed that the examples of
contradictory statements in the Bible which we had been jointly
discussing did not in any way affect the founding beliefs of
Christianity (see examples in chapter two). He provided me with
literature by men such as Mr. F.F. Bruce stating such things as "....Does it matter whether the New
Testament documents are reliable or not? Is it so very important that we
should be able to accept them as truly historical records?" and also"......the story of Jesus
as it has come down to us may be myth or legend, but the teaching
ascribed to him- whether he was actually responsible for it or not - has
a value all it's own," and so forth. Muslims know for a fact that Jesus (pbuh)
was neither a myth nor a legend but a true prophet of God, but we do
feel that an inspired book of God should contain no contradictions,
historical or otherwise. For this reason we do not believe that his book
has reached us as it was originally submitted by him. Mr. J believes that such matters as knowing
the true authors of the books of the Bible are not crucial to a
Christian's faith and challenged us to prove that a Christian's basic
faith is at all in error and not the same message preached by Jesus
2000 years ago. In compliance with his request, he was sent four very
brief questions concerning the founding beliefs of Christianity. He was
then asked to provide carefully researched and weighed answers to these
questions. These four questions are presented below. They have been
slightly modified in this book in order to ensure that they are as clear
as possible. The basic questions, however, remain the same:
"Faith" is without a doubt one of
the most basic and fundamental ingredients in the doctrine of any
religious belief. However, when you wish someone to believe in a given
fundamental doctrine which you propose, it is first necessary to prove
the validity of your assertion before you can ask that person to
"have faith." In other words, faith is indeed important,
however, it can not precede the proof. Once the proof has been
established, only then can faith come into play. This is indeed what
prophet Jesus (pbuh) taught his followers during his lifetime. Jesus (pbuh)
did not simply show up before the Jews one day and demand that the
Pharisees, Sadducees, and everyone else accept him without proof.
Rather, he performed many miracles for them and at the same time
reasoned with them and used logic to convince them. The Bible is full of
examples of how Jesus (pbuh) would go out of his way to explain things
to his followers, reason with them and prove his case to them. Obviously, when we ask for proof that a
given person taught a given doctrine, the very first place to look for
proof of this claim is the words of that person himself. If I believe
that Jesus (pbuh) taught a given fundamental doctrine such as the
Trinity, the "Son of God," the "original sin," or
the "atonement," then not only would I be justified in
expecting him to have mentioned it at least once throughout his whole
ministry, but I would expect him to have spoken of practically nothing
else. For this reason, the above four questions have been proposed in
order to arrive at the command of Jesus (pbuh). If Jesus did indeed ever
command that I should worship a Trinity or that I should believe that he
is God, then I would expect him to say so clearly at least once in his
whole life. If he says it at least once then others shall be justified
in repeating it a thousand times. However, I want to first know ... What
did Jesus really say? The Bible says: "Jesus answered and said unto him,
If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him,
and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
John 14:23 Jesus (peace be upon him) clearly outlines
here that it is his words that we must keep and that shall
lead to the love of God. Naturally, I wish to know what Jesus said so
that I might follow his command, and his alone. Every one else's words
without exception shall then be either accepted or rejected based upon
their conformance to the words of the great and pious messenger of
Allah, Jesus the son of Mary. Does this sound fair? The Christian world has performed a very
admirable job in providing us with Bibles in practically every size,
language, shape and color. Among these Bibles are the series of Bibles
titled the "Red letter editions." These Bibles are set apart
from more conventional Bibles in that the words of Jesus are
distinguished from the rest of the text by writing them in red ink. This
makes the process of locating the words of Jesus and differentiating
them from those of everyone else much simpler for the reader. Our goal
in this book is to find evidence in the RED
ink of where Jesus (pbuh) himself ever
taught mankind any of the fundamental concepts of the religion which has
been attributed to him and which is named "Christianity". We
shall see in what follows that whenever someone tries to validate such
doctrines they always attempt to do so with the words in the BLACK
ink and never the ones in RED
ink. Muslims are told in the Qur'an that Jesus (pbuh)
was one of the most pious and elect messengers of God Almighty for all
time. However, we are also told that he was not himself a god, nor the
physical son of God. We read in the Qur'an: "And when Allah said: O Jesus, son
of Mary! Did you say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods
beside Allah?* he said: Be You glorified. It was not mine to
utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then You knew
it. You know what is in my [innermost] self but I know not what is in
Yours. Truly! You, only You are the Knower of things hidden. I spoke
unto them only that which You commanded me, (saying): Worship Allah, my
Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness over them while I dwelt among
them, and when You took me You were the Watcher over them, and You are
Witness over all things." The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):116-118 Obviously, both claims can not be true.
Either Jesus (pbuh) did indeed command mankind to worship him or he did
not. Since my level of knowledge of the words of the Bible obviously can
not compare with that of Mr. J., therefore, I was hoping that he could
demonstrate to me where Jesus actually said any of these things. Since
the issues of the Trinity, the Son of God, the original sin, and the
atonement comprise the most fundamental differences in belief between
the Islamic and Christian faith, therefore, I had hoped that in
answering these four very brief questions it might be possible to once
and for all arrive at the true command of Jesus. Mr. J's response
follows: 1.1
Christian perspective It is my great privilege and pleasure to
have been invited to address the readers [of this publication] on some
of the most important distinctions between Christianity and Islam. Four
questions have been proposed as a means of clarifying the Biblical
perspective in relation to the series of articles on Jesus and
Christianity that appeared last semester. As I see it, all four questions essentially
come together in one basic question: Who is Jesus? The answer to that
question, and the heart of the message that has been proclaimed by
followers of Jesus since His advent, is that "you may believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have
life in His name." (John 20:31). Addressing each of these questions may now
help clarify this historic Christian conviction. 1. Is there a Trinity? The Biblical teaching of God's essential
nature, summarized in the word "Trinity," rests largely on our
understanding of the identity of Jesus, a question I will take up in
some length under question #3. At this point, perhaps a demonstration that
the terminology for the doctrine of the Trinity is found throughout the
New Testament: * "therefore go and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit..." (Matthew 28:19). * "There are different kinds of gifts,
but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same
Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all
of them in all men." (I Corinthians 12:4-6). * "May the grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be
with you all." (II Corinthians 13:14). * "But you, dear friends, build
yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep
yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of the Lord Jesus
Christ to bring you to eternal life." (Jude 20-21). The doctrine of the Trinity is perhaps best
understood in terms of Christian salvation. Christians believe that God
the Father wills that we be reconciled to Him from sin, and that He sent
the Son, Who in His perfect life and substitutionary death provides the
basis of that reconciliation, and that the Father now, in Jesus' name,
sends the Holy Spirit, Who applies the salvation of Jesus to the
Christian believers, thus saving them and empowering them to live lives
of victory over sin. Thus is the Christian's experience and assurance of
salvation in terms of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet they
absolutely believe that there is only one God. How do we
put this together? This is where the word "Trinity" comes in.
It expresses this truth about God as it is found in the Bible. This is
certainly not an exhaustive explanation, but it may help to demonstrate
the significance of the doctrine in practical Christian life. 2. Is Jesus the physical
(begotten/sired) son of GodSon of
God? Jesus is presented in the New Testament as
the Son of God by virtue of His unique eternal relationship with the
Father and by means of His unique virgin birth. We need to understand,
then, how Jesus is the Son of God. The New Testament tells us how: This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came
about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before
they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy
Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want
to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel
of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of
David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is
conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son,
and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people
from their sins. (Matthew 1:18-21). The question as stated implies that Jesus
is somehow the result of a physical union between God and Mary, but this
is not at all the case. Jesus' birth is a miraculous event through the
agency of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Son's deity is incarnated, or made
flesh; in this Jesus is the "God-man" Begotten is
the old English word that, while in human terms means to have a child,
the emphasis even there is that what a human father "begets' shares
in the essential nature of that father. It is in this sense that the
King James translates the Greek word monogenes as "begotten ; Jesus
shares the essential nature of the Father, but rather through some
physical act, but a supernatural one. 3. Did Jesus Himself ever say in the
Bible "I am God!" or "worship me!"? What makes Jesus stand out from all other
religious figures is the nature of His claims about Himself. He claims
the prerogatives of God, the rightful object of a person's supreme
allegiance, and receives with out censure the worship and obedience of
those who believe. A number of examples may help to illustrate
this: A. Forgiveness of sins In Mark 2:1-12, we read the account of
Jesus healing a crippled man. What is so surprising, and so shocking to
His original audience, is the statement that Jesus makes before healing
the man. As Jesus sees a group of men bring the
paralytic to Him, Mark records the scene: When Jesus saw their faith , he said to the
paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Now some teachers of the law were sitting
there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like
that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were
thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you
thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your
sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But
that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive
sins..." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take
your mat and go home." He got up, took his mat and walked out in
full view of them all. B. Titles Jesus in the Gospels appropriates two
significant titles throughout His ministry: 1. The Son of Man This is the title that Jesus Himself uses
most frequently. It is a Messianic title derived from the Old Testament
book of Daniel. When we read the passage in Daniel, the implicit claim
that Jesus is making about Himself becomes apparent: In my vision
at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming
with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led
into his presence. He (the son of man) was given authority, glory and
sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language
worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not
pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Daniel
7:13-14). 2. The Son of God At His trial
Jesus affirmed this title: Again the high priest asked him, "Are
you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said
Jesus. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the
Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven. (Mark 14:61-63). C. Jesus' direct claims At the climax of a lengthy argument, Jesus
speaks of Himself: "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of
seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." "You are not yet fifty
years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen
Abraham!" "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered,
"before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up
stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the
temple grounds." (John 8:56-59). The shock of this claim are those two words
"I am." It is the same designation that God used for Himself
in His call to Moses: God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is
what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
(Exodus 3:14). D. Jesus receives worship Jesus heard that they had thrown him out,
and when he found him, Jesus said, "Do you believe in the Son of
Man?" "Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so
that I may believe in him.." Jesus said, "You have now seen
him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.." Then the man said,
"Lord. I believe," and he worshipped him." (John
9:35-38). Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee,
to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they
worshipped him... (Matthew 28:16-17). E. Jesus accepts divine entitlement In what is a clear dialogue between Jesus
and "Doubting" Thomas, we read: Then Jesus said to Thomas,
"Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it
into my side. Stop doubting and believe.." Thomas said to him,
"My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus held him," Because you
have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and
yet have believed." (John 20:27-29). Does Jesus say, "I am God"? No,
because that would have been misunderstood. Jesus is not the Father (as
it would have been thought), Jesus is the Son. But He clearly claims an
absolutely unique relationship with God whom Jesus calls 'Father."
Jesus claims something about Himself that, through the various miracles,
His statements as cited above, and the response He receives from other
people, is slowly filled-out, and the meaning of His Sonship becomes
clear. In the very opening of his Gospel, the
Apostle John presents Jesus as "the Word" and provides perhaps
the clearest explanation of the identity of Jesus, the meaning of the
incarnation, and a further glimpse into the reality of the Trinity: In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made;
without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and
that life was the light of men. The Word became flesh and made his
dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and
Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-4;
14). 4. If it can be proven, through the
Bible, that Jesus is not God, nor the physical/begotten/sired son of GodSon
of God, neither is there any trinity, then will this prove that the
unscrupulous few have corrupted the word of God? The Christian message about Jesus revolves
around three facts: the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the
resurrection. Prove from the Bible or otherwise that any one of these
three things are not true, and like a three-legged stool the truth of
the message would collapse. Most "proofs" against the
traditional teachings of Christianity consist of pitting one passage of
Scripture against another, and almost always taking such passages out of
context. Context, I believe, always vindicates the understanding of God
and of Jesus as I have here tried to briefly present. I would conclude, then, with an
encouragement for the readers to read the Bible, particularly one of the
Gospels, for themselves. There, I believe, the words and works of Jesus
would provide a most convincing reason to embrace Him as Lord and
Savior, and find in Him the spiritual satisfaction that so many today
seek after. 1.2
Muslim perspective (Note:
the rest of chapter one is an expansion of the original response to Mr.
J's letter) Thank
you Mr. J for your most thought provoking letter. I would also like to
thank you for the knowledge you have provided therein. In what is to
follow I have striven to avoid objectionable or disrespectful wording.
This is an academic exchange and not a slug-fest. I am however human. If
one or two cases have slipped by me then I apologize in advance for
them. They were not intentional. I also realize that this is quite a
lengthy response for someone to read in one sitting. However, I ask the
reader to try to do so and not to pass judgment until they have managed
to receive a complete picture. Now, the response: The three faiths, Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam, all purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God
as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known
as "Tawhid" in Islam, this concept of Oneness of God was
stressed by Moses (pbuh) in the Biblical passage Known as the "Shema,"
or the Jewish creed of faith: "Hear, O Israel The Lord our God is
one Lord" Deuteronomy 6:4 It was repeated word-for-word approximately
1500 years later by Jesus (pbuh) when he said "...The first of all the
commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord." Mark 12:29 Muhammad (pbuh) came along approximately
600 years later, bringing the same message again: "And your God is One God: there is
no god but He" The noble Qur'an, al-Bakarah(2):163 Christianity has digressed from the concept
of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine
that was formulated during the fourth century CE (see historical details
in section 1.2.5). This doctrine, which continues to be the source of
controversy both within and outside the Christian religion, is known as
the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons -
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - in one divine being.
Christians must guard themselves from ever claiming that they worship
three gods since this would be a heresy of the worst kind. Christians
are commanded to always refer to them all as ONE God. This belief, as we
shall soon see in coming chapters, was first put to words in the famous
"Creed of Nicea" in 325C.E. Among other things, it says: "Whoever wishes to be saved must,
above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith
whole and entire he will undoubtedly be lost forever. This is what the
Catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the
Trinity in unity. We distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide
the substance. For the Father is a distinct person; the Son is a
distinct person; and the Holy Spirit is a distinct person. Still the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory,
and coeternal majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy
Spirit is. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy
Spirit is uncreated. The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and
the Holy Spirit is boundless. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal,
and the Holy Spirit is eternal. Nevertheless, there are not three
eternal beings, but one eternal being. Thus there are not three
uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being
and one boundless being. Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is
omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. Yet there are not three
omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being. Thus the Father is God, the
Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But there are not three gods,
but one God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is
Lord. There as not three lords, but one Lord. For according to Christian
truth, we must profess that each of the persons individually is God; and
according to Christian religion we are forbidden to say that there are
three gods or lords. …But the entire three persons are coeternal and
coequal with one another….So that, as we have said, we worship
complete unity in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity. This, then, is
what he who wishes to be saved must believe about the Trinity….This is
the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly;
otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen." Christian sects are many and varied.
However, the majority of Christians the world over believe in the
following four basic concepts:
Everything else is pretty much relegated
into the background. A Christian can be saved and enter heaven by simply
believing in the above creeds. According to St. Paul, the previous law
and commandments of God are worthless, this simple belief will guarantee
for all comers eternal salvation. For example, St. Paul is quoted to
have said: "Therefore we conclude that a man
is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28. The words of Saint Paul are held by most of
Christianity in the highest regard, and this is understandable since he
is the primary author of the majority of the books of the New Testament.
However, no matter what role St. Paul played in the definition and
spread of Christianity, when displaying respect for the teachings of
Paul, it is necessary not to lose sight of the fact that he is in no way
equal to Jesus, nor should his command be placed before the command of
Jesus if we were to find them to differ from one another. No one, not
even Paul or the apostles of Jesus has this right, since they are all,
after all, subordinate to Jesus Christ himself. However, were we to study the religion
known today as "Christ"ianity, we would find that it is the
interpretation of St. Paul of what he personally believed to be the
religion of Jesus(pbuh). Christianity as it stands today has been
reduced to an interpretation of the words of Jesus (pbuh) within the
context of what Paul taught rather than the other way around which
is the way it should be. We would expect Christianity to be the
teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and that the words of Paul and everyone else
would be accepted or rejected according to their conformity to these
"Jesuit" teachings. However, we will notice in what follows
that Jesus (pbuh) never in his lifetime mentioned an original sin, or an
atonement. He never asked anyone to worship him, neither did he ever
claim to be part of a Trinity. His words and actions are those of a
loyal messenger of God who faithfully and faultlessly followed the
commands of his Lord and only told his followers to do the same and to
worship God alone (John 4:21, John 4:23, Matthew 4:10,
Luke 4:8 ...etc.). Just one of the countless examples of this
placement of the words of Paul above the words of Jesus can be seen in
the following analysis: Jesus (pbuh) is claimed to have been prepared
for his sacrifice on the cross from the beginning of time and was a
willing victim (otherwise we would have to claim that God is a sadistic
and torturous God who forced Jesus into such a savage end).
However, whenever Jesus (pbuh) was asked about the path to "eternal
life" he consistently told his followers to only "keep
the commandments" and nothing more (Matthew 19:16-21, John
14:15, John 15:10). Not once did he himself ever mention an original sin
or a redemption. Even when pressed for the path to
"PERFECTION" he only told his followers to sell their
belongings. He departed this earth leaving his followers with the very
dire threat: "For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilledJesus,
Fulfillment of Law of Moses. Whosoever therefore shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them,
the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18-19. Obviously, heaven and earth have not yet
passed. The fact that you are reading this book bears witness to this
very simple fact. So Jesus (pbuh) is telling us that so long as creation
exists, the commandments will be required from his followers.
Anyone who will dare to say otherwise, until the end of time, will be
called "the least in the kingdom of heaven." Jesus (pbuh)
had foreseen mankind's attempt to distort and annul his commandments,
the commandments of Moses (pbuh), which he had taught his followers to
keep and himself had kept faithfully till the crucifixion, and was
warning his followers in no uncertain terms to be wary of all those who
would attempt to do so. Not long after, Jesus departs. Now Saul of
Tarsus (St. Paul), a man who never met Jesus (pbuh), a man who by his
own admission persecuted the followers of Jesus (pbuh) by every means
within his power and presided over their execution (see below), comes
along. Suddenly one day St. Paul receives a vision from Jesus (pbuh),
and his whole life is turned around. He now takes it upon himself
through the authority of his visions to spread the word of Jesus to the
whole world and to explain what Jesus really meant. Paul claims
that the law of God through Moses (pbuh) is worthless, decaying and
ready to vanish away and faith in the crucifixion is the only
requirement for a Christian to enter heaven (Romans 3:28, Hebrews
8:13...etc.). Who do Christians listen to, Jesus or Paul? They listen to
Paul. They take the words of Paul literally and then
"interpret" the words of Jesus (pbuh) within the context of
the words of Paul. No one takes the words of Jesus (pbuh)
literally and explains the words of Paul within the context of Jesus'
words. According to this system of explaining the
words of Jesus within the context of Paul's teachings, Jesus never
actually means what he says but is constantly speaking in riddles which
are not to be taken literally. Even when people attempt to cite the
words of Jesus as confirming the teachings of Paul with regard to the
original sin, the atonement, ...etc. they never bring clear and
decisive words where Jesus actually confirms these things. Instead,
they say such things as "When Jesus spoke of the exodus he was
really speaking of the atonement" or so forth. Are we to
believe that Paul is the only one who can say what is on his mind
clearly and decisively while Jesus (pbuh) is not capable of articulating
what he means clearly and decisively but requires interpreters to
explain the "true" meaning of what he said, and to
explain how, when he spoke of the commandments, he was not talking of
"the commandments" but of a spiritual
commandment and that they will now tell you what this spiritual
commandment is that Jesus never managed to talk clearly about?. It is interesting to note that Jesus was
not talking in riddles when he commanded his followers to keep the
commandments but was talking of the actual physical commandments of
Moses. This can be clearly seen by reading for instance Luke 18:20 where
Jesus spells out in no uncertain terms what he means by "keep
the commandments." "And I (Jesus) have come confirming
that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful for you part
of that which was forbidden upon you. And I have come to you with a sign
from your Lord so seek refuge in Allah and obey me" The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):50 In the past, I have searched for a logical
answer to this puzzle by posing the following questions to respected
Christian clergy:
Whenever this question would be presented
to a respected member of the Christian clergy the response would always
be the same: "Well, don't take Jesus' words literally. St.
Paul has told us in Romans ...," or "Yes, but St. Paul tells
us in Galatians ....," or "St. Paul tells us in Corinthians
.." Yet my question remains: where did JESUS every
say it? Where does the RED ink say it? Doesn't St. Paul's
authority come from Jesus? I simply want a single clear statement from
Jesus himself where he endorsed Paul's claims and then it would be
possible to accept Paul's claim that he was indeed preaching the
"command of Jesus." If Jesus were only to say it once then I
can accept Paul repeating it a thousand times. However, as we shall soon
see, never, not even once in his whole
lifetime did Jesus (pbuh) endorse the preachings of Paul. Getting back to the matter at hand, the
reader will notice in Mr. J's response a surprising absence of certain
very fundamental verses usually quoted by any Christian man or woman off
the street in defense of the "Trinity" and other issues. The
reader may further surmise that Mr. J might not be well versed enough in
the Bible to have referred to these verses. This is far from the case.
His occupation requires that he know those verses. The fact of the
matter is that I have had an ongoing correspondence with Mr. J for a
number of months now which he has now asked be publicized. In this
correspondence, many of these fundamental verses were dealt with in
detail and refuted for various reasons. This is why he did not quote
them here. However, in order that all may benefit from this information
we will quote these same verses that he has elected not to. We will also
study the other verses he has presented. 1.2.1
"Blind faith" or "Prove all things"? Before
actually getting down to our response, let us first establish the ground
rules. All Bibles in existence today tell us that Christians are taught
by Jesus (pbuh) himself: "And Jesus answered him, The first
of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one
Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is
the first commandment." Mark 12:29-30. They are also told "Prove all things; hold fast that
which is good" 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and "For God is not [the author] of
confusion" 1 Corinthians 14:33. So, contrary to the teachings of many,
Jesus (pbuh) did not want his followers to believe everything they were
told on "blind faith." Rather, he wanted his followers
to believe "with all thy mind." He wanted us to THINK
in order to protect his words from corruption. Let us comply with the
teaching of Allah's elect messenger, Jesus (peace be upon him), and see
where the truth and our minds will lead us: 1.2.2:
The "Trinity," or 1+1+1=1 "Opeople
of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught
but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was [no more or less than] a
messenger of Allah, and His word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a
spirit preceding from Him: so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say
not "Three": desist!, it is better for you, for Allah is one
god, Glory be to Him, Far exalted is He above having a son. To Him
belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a
disposer of affairs." The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissah(4):171 "Or have they (mankind) chosen gods
from the earth who raise the dead If there were therein gods besides
Allah then verily both (the heavens and the earth) would have gone to
ruin. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the throne from all they ascribe
(unto Him)" The noble Qur'an, Al-Anbia(21):21-22 "Allah coineth a similitude: A man
in relation to whom are several partners quarreling, and a man belonging
wholly to one man. Are the two equal in similitude? Praise be to Allah,
but most of them know not." The noble Qur'an, Al-Zumar(39):27. In other words, which would be more
conducive of harmony: For an employee to have two bosses quarreling over
him, or for each employee to have only one boss? "Say (O Muhammad, to the
disbelievers): If there were other gods along with Him, as they say,
then they would have sought a way against the Lord of the Throne.
Glorified is He, and High Exalted above what they say! The seven heavens
and the earth and all that is therein praise Him, and there is not a
thing but hymns his praise; but you understand not their praise. Lo! He
is ever Clement, Forgiving." The noble Qur'an, Al-Israa(17):42-44. "And say: Praise be to Allah, Who
has not taken unto Himself a son, and Who has no partner in the
Sovereignty, nor has He any ally through dependence. And magnify Him
with all magnificence." The noble Qur'an, Al-Israa(17):111. "Allah has not chosen any son, nor
is there any God along with Him; else would each God have assuredly
championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have
overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege. Knower
of the invisible and the visible! and exalted be He over all that they
ascribe as partners (unto Him)!"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Muminoon(23):91-92. The concept of the "Trinity" as
originally adopted by Christianity three centuries after the
departure of Jesus (see historical details at the end of this chapter)
and taught to Christians ever since is the merging of three entities
into one similar entity while remaining three distinct entities. In
other words: Three bodies fold, blend, or merge into one body so that
they become one entity while at the same time exhibiting the
characteristics of three distinct and separate entities. It is described
as "a mystery." As we just read, the first definition of the
Trinity was put forth in the fourth century as follows: "...we
worship one God in the trinity, and Trinity in Unity...for there is one
Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is
all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three
persons are co-eternal and co-equal...he therefore that will be saved
must thus think of the trinity..." (excerpts from the
Athanasian creed). When the Church speaks of worship, God,
Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are claimed to be one being.
This is because verses such as Isaiah 43:10-11 and countless others are
very explicit in affirming that God Almighty is ONE. However, when they
speak of "the death of God" it is Jesus (pbuh) who is claimed
to have died and not God or the "Trinity." Now the three are separate.
When God is described as having "begotten" a son it is not the
"Trinity" nor Jesus (pbuh) which has begotten, but a
distinctly separate being from the other two... there are many
such examples. So how do we resolve this problem? Do we simply have
blind faith or do we "love the Lord thy God … with all thy
mind,"?. If we chose the later course of action then we shall
first need to specify what authority we shall accept in our recognition
of the true divine nature of God Almighty. When God Almighty sends down a revelation,
He addresses it to the common man, the carpenter, the blacksmith, the
local merchant. God does not reveal His scriptures in a language that
only the deep thinkers, the most learned scholars, and those with Ph.D.s
in rocket science alone can understand. This is not to say that it is
not necessary to consult people of authority in this scripture in times
of difficulty regarding matters of secondary importance, however, if it
were impossible for the common man to even recognize from his scripture
who is God, or "who do I worship?" without extensive external
influences from learned clergymen, then I am sure you will agree that
not very many people shall ever be guided to the truth of this scripture
and the basic message contained therein. The matter of "who do I worship"
is without a doubt the hands-down most important, nay crucial, piece of
information that must be provided a reader of a divine scripture before
they can accept a single word of this scripture. This matter must be
made exceedingly clear to them before they can accept a single
commandment. If I wish to work for a company but I do not know who
is(are) my boss(s) then how can I know what he(they) want me to do? How
can I know which commands to follow and which not to? For the same reason, we would be justified
in expecting that if we were to present a native of the jungles of
Zimbabwe with a copy of a divine scripture in it's original language,
and we were to leave without saying a single word to him, then we would
expect that at the very least, this person should be able to extract
from this scripture the nature of the One who inspired this book. Therefore, let
us begin by drawing a table and including in this table some commands of
the Bible where we are explicitly commanded to recognize
that God is one, and also all verses where it explicitly
commands us to believe that He is three. Once the Bible commands me to
believe that God is three in one then I shall not ask for an explanation
or a justification. I do not need God to explain "how" He can
be "one" and also "three" at the same time. All I
want is for the Bible to command me to believe that this is so and then
command me to have blind faith. Here is our table:
Now that we
have built this table we are ready to proceed. Let us begin by filling
in the first line. In the Bible we read:
This is only a brief sampling, however, it
is sufficient for now. So let us fill in the table.
So now let us move on and fill in the
second line. Let us start with the verses quoted by Mr. J. Mr. J. has presented us with Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, and Jude 1:20-21 as proof of
the claim that God Almighty is three-in-one. Let us study them. But
first, let us clearly define our goal. When I asked for a verse wherein
God is explicitly claimed to be "three in one," what I wanted
was a verse that says something like "God, Jesus and the Holy
Ghost are all gods, however, they are not three gods but one God,"
or "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are the same being,"
or "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same"
etc. Just because the words "God,"
"Jesus," and "Holy Ghost" might appear together in
one verse does not mean this verse requires a "Trinity," or
"merging of three into one." Even if this verse also contains
the word "one" this still does not necessarily require a
"Trinity." For example, if I say "Joe, Jim, and Frank
speak one language" this is not the same as saying "Joe,
Jim, and Frank are one person." As we shall see, the examples
Mr. J. has presented are all at best implicit statements, so let us
begin by modifying our table and inserting these verses:
Let us now study Mr. J.'s examples: 1.2.2.1
Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost:" If ex-President George Bush told General
Norman Schwartzkopf to "Go ye therefore, and speak to the
Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain,
and the Soviet Union," does this require that these three
countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose
and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are
the same physical entity. Further, the "Great Commission"
as narrated in the Gospel of Mark, bears no mention of the
Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark 16:15). As we shall see in
chapter two, Christian historians readily admit that the Bible was the
object of continuous "correction" and "addition" to
bring it in line with established beliefs. They present many documented
cases where words were "inserted" into a given verse to
validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor of the
Toronto Star says: "All but the most conservative of
scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was
inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament,
and we know from the only evidence available (the rest of the New
Testament) that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these
words - baptism was 'into' or 'in' the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is
argued that the verse originally read 'baptizing them in my name' and
then was expanded to work in the dogma. In fact, the first view put
forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the
nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline
scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first
published: 'The church of the first days did not observe this world-wide
commandment, even if they new it. The command to baptize into the
threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion.'" "For Christ's sake," Tom Harpur,
p. 103 This is confirmed in 'Peake's Commentary on
the Bible' published since 1919, which is universally acclaimed and
considered to be the standard reference for students of the Bible. It
says: "This mission is described in the
language of the church and most commentators doubt that the Trinitarian
formula was original at this point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT
elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being
performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16,
etc.)." For example, these Christian scholars
observed that after Jesus allegedly issued this command and then was
taken up into heaven, the apostles displayed a complete lack of
knowledge of this command. "And Peter said to them, 'Repent,
and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins;...'"
Acts 2:38. These Christian scholars observed that it
is extremely unlikely that if Jesus had indeed specifically commanded
his apostles to "baptize in the name of the father and the son and
the holy Ghost" that the apostles would later disobey his direct
command and baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ, alone. As a final piece of evidence, it is noted
that after the departure of Jesus, when Paul decided to preach to the
Gentiles, this resulted in a heated debate and a great difference of
opinion between him and at least three of the apostles. This would not
be the case if Jesus had, as claimed, openly commanded them to preach to
the Gentiles (see section 6.13 for more). So we notice that not only
does this verse never claim that the three are one, or even that the
three are equal, but most scholars of Christianity today recognize that at
the very least the last part of this verse ("the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost") was not originally part of the
command of Jesus but was inserted by the church long after Jesus'
departure. 1.2.2.2
I Corinthians 12:4-6 "Now there are diversities of
gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of
administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of
operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all." If I were to say: "There are
diversities of gifts, but the same Santa Claus. And there are
differences of administrations, but the same government. And there are a
diversity of operations, but the same God worketh all in all."
Do God, the US government and Santa Claus now form another
"Trinity"? Is this indeed how this verse was meant to be read?
Is it impossible to receive "gifts,"
"administrations," and "operations" except from ONE
person? There is a big difference between this verse and between saying
"God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same." Even in
the very best case, no one who reads I Corinthians 12:4-6 will claim
that it explicitly states that the three are one, they themselves
will have to admit that it only implies such a connection. So now
we need to ask: Why would God Almighty need to resort to implying
His triune nature if this is indeed what He intended? What is preventing
Him from simply coming out and stating His intent clearly if this is
indeed what He meant? Why does everything have to be so abstract?
If this is the true nature of God then why can't the Bible just come out
and say "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are physically joined in
one being" or "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one
and the same." Is this so very hard? Look at how much less
space this would require. Look at how infinitely more clear and decisive
that would be. Look at the clear cut decisiveness of Deuteronomy 4:39 "Know therefore this day, and
consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and
upon the earth beneath: there is none else." God does not philosophize and speak all the
way around matters. He speaks clearly and in no uncertain terms so that
there can be no doubt as to what He meant. If God was indeed a Trinity
why would He not simply just come out and say so, just as clearly and
decisively as He does when He speaks about his uniqueness? 1.2.2.3
II Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be]
with you all. Amen." If
I say: "May the genius of Einstein, the philosophy of Descartes,
and the strength of Schwarzenegger be with you all" does this
require all three to be joined in a "Trinity"? Does it require
that Einstein is Descartes (or a different
"side" of Descartes)? Does it require that Descartes is
Schwarzenegger (or a different "side" of Schwarzenegger)? 1.2.2.4
Jude 1:20-21 "But ye, beloved, building up
yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep
yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus
Christ unto eternal life." By now we begin to get the picture. Do
these verses require a Trinity?. Do they say "God, Jesus,
and the Holy Ghost are ONE God?" If a father told his sons who were
going off to war "But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on
your training, obeying your superior officers, Keep yourselves in the
love of your country while you look for the mercy of God to return you
home to us safely," can we honestly claim that this statement
requires a "merging of three into one"?. Deuteronomy 4:39 requires
the uniqueness of God. It is very explicit. There are no
two ways about it. It is very clear, decisive, and to the point. The
explicit (and not the "hidden") meaning is quite clear and
direct. Is it impossible to find the Bible only a single verse that is
similarly decisive about the claimed Trinity?. All of these verses
require you to really strain the words and stretch their meaning to
arrive at any merging of three into one. With regard to Mr. J.'s description of the
Trinity please read the analysis of the original sin and the redemption
coming up soon. An interesting
point is that when people tell us about the doctrine of the
"Trinity," even in the very best case, they never try to claim
that any Jew knew of this formula before the coming of Jesus (pbuh) or
worshipped a "Triune" God. However, God Almighty was sending
prophets to the Jews for centuries before the time of Jesus, and Jesus
is claimed to have been in existence before all of creation. Why did
none of these previous prophets tell their people that God was three?.
They went out of their way to make it very explicitly clear that God was
ONE as seen in the above examples, however, there is not a single Jew
alive who worships a Trinity, believes that the Holy Spirit mentioned in
their Old Testament is God, or worships a "Son of God." Even
if the Jews do not believe that Jesus is the "Son of God,"
would we not be justified in expecting that they should at least believe
that "there is" a "Son of God" even if he was
someone other than Jesus? Would we not be justified in expecting the
previous prophets to have mentioned this fact? Why did God wait to favor
us alone with this knowledge and chose to deprive many countless
thousands of generations before Jesus the knowledge of this claimed
fact? Did the countless prophets of the Old Testament not know about the
"Trinity"? Did God not see fit to tell the Jews about the
Trinity? Was God not yet a "Trinity" when He sent Abraham (pbuh)
to his people? Was He not yet a "Trinity" when He spoke to
Moses (pbuh)? Did He become a "Trinity" later on? How then do
we explain the Christian creed of Nicea, the official Church definition
of the "Trinity" which requires the "co-eternity"
and "co-substantiality" of Jesus with God? But let us continue
with our analysis. Let us begin by updating our table:
When someone speaks to someone else about a
specific matter, they usually spend the majority of their time
explaining the major issues and much less time on side-issues. For
instance, if I wanted to give someone my favorite recipe for chicken
parmesan I would spend most of my time speaking about the ingredients,
their amounts, their order of combination, the amount of time needed to
cook each one and so on. I would spend very little time (comparatively)
talking about how to set the table or what color bowl to serve it in.
When comparing this observation to the Bible, I found that for a matter
of such profound and dire importance, the "Trinity" is never
mentioned in the Bible at all. Sound preposterous? Read on. Let us first
begin by modifying our table and including all of the verses of the
Bible which are used today in defense of the "Trinity." The
reason for these modifications shall be made clear in our analysis.
1.2.2.5
1 John 5:7 The only verses in the whole Bible that
explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one
"Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these
three are one." This
is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been
asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now
universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the
Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised
Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American
Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible
...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages.
Why is this? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the
following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott."
Mr. Wilson says: "This text concerning the heavenly
witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written
earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the
ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the
subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to
appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious." Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W.
Armstrong argued that this verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition
of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and
God's people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally
recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no
verses validating a "Trinity" therefore, centuries after the
departure of Jesus, God chose to inspire someone to insert this verse in
order to clarify the true nature of God as being a "Trinity."
Notice how mankind was being inspired as to how to "clarify"
the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People
continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even
God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being
"inspired" (see chapter two). If these people were being
"inspired" by God, I wondered, then why did they need to put
these words into other people's mouths (in our example, in
the mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say "God inspired
me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name"?
Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to
"inspire" his "true" nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh)
say it himself? The great luminary of Western literature,
Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse
from the pages of the Bible with the following words: "Of all the manuscripts now extant,
above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old,
the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of
Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of
Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh
and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop
of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman
church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the
passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest
and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The
three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the
prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors;
the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of
a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of
Theodore Beza." "Decline and fall of the Roman
Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418. Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings
by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who
also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse
of 1 John 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into the Bible in
the year 400C.E.(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33). Regarding Porson's most devastating proof,
Mr. Gibbon later said "His structures are founded in
argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his
adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The
evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any
court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our
vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text." To which Mr. Bentley responds: "In fact, they are not. No modern
Bible now contains the interpolation." Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed,
just as Mr. Gibbon had predicted, the simple fact that the most learned
scholars of Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a
later interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of
this fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the
hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible,
still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word
of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all
scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later
fabrication. Peake's Commentary on the Bible says "The famous interpolation after
'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the
heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is
never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek
MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it
entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus." It was only the horrors of the great
inquisitions which held back Sir Isaac Newton from openly revealing
these facts to all: "In all the vehement universal and
lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before
and long enough after it, the text of the 'three in heaven' was never
once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main
text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them,
had it been in their books… Let them make good sense of it who are
able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to
determine what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I
confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to
take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and
superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of
mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least.
Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honor
for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that
to be his which is the best" Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim,
p. 156 According to Newton, this verse first
appeared for in the third edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New
Testament. For all of the above reasons, we find that
when thirty two biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating
Christian denominations got together to compile the Revised Standard
Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts
available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among
these changes was the unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7
as the fabricated insertion that it is. For more on the compilation of
the RSV Bible, please read the preface of any modern copy of that Bible. Such comparatively unimportant matters as
the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a
"colt", or was it an "ass and a colt"? see point 42
in the table of section 2.2) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great
details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in
Mark 11:2-10 we read: "And saith unto them, Go your way
into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it,
ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring
[him]. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord
hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went
their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where
two ways met; and they loose him And certain of them that stood there
said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them
even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go And they brought the
colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And
many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off
the trees, and strawed [them] in the way And they that went before, and
they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh
in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David,
that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest." Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar
detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is
completely free of any description of the "Trinity" which is
supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who rode this
ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died
for the sins of all of mankind. I found myself asking the question: If
every aspect of Christian faith is described in such detail such that
even the description of this ass is so vividly depicted for us, then why
is the same not true for the description of the "Trinity"?
Sadly, however, it is a question for which there is no logical answer. Once again, here is the table:
1.2.2.6
John 1:1 Another verse quoted in defense of the
"Trinity" is the verse of John 1:1 : "In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God." When I first learned of this verse it
appeared to me that I had finally found my elusive goal. However, after
substantial research into Christian theological literature, I would
later come to learn that this verse too can not be interpreted to
justify a "triune" God. My own experience has shown that this
verse is the one most popularly quoted by most Christians in defense of
the Trinity. For this reason I shall spend a little more time in it's
analysis than in the analysis of the other verses. First of all,
it is quite obvious from simply reading the above verse that even in the
very best case, this verse speaks only of a "Duality" not a
"Trinity." Even the most resolute conservative Christian will
never claim to find in this verse any mention whatsoever of a
"merging" of a Holy Ghost with God and "the Word."
So even if we were to accept this verse at face value and just have
faith, even then, we find ourselves commanded to believe in a
"Duality" and not a "Trinity." But let us see if
this verse does in fact even command us to believe in a
"Duality." To do this we need to notice the following points: 1) Mistranslation of the text:
In the "original" Greek
manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word"
is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not
as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more
faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you
will find exactly this wording). Similarly, in "The New Testament, An
American Translation" this verse is honestly presented as "In the beginning the Word existed.
The Word was with God, and the Word was divine." The New Testament, An American Translation,
Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press,
p. 173 And again in the dictionary of the Bible,
under the heading of "God" we read "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be
translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a
divine being.'" The Dictionary of the Bible by John
McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317 In yet another Bible we read: "The Logos (word) existed in the
very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine" The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New
Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt Please also see "The Authentic New
Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield and many others. If we look at a different verse, 2
Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos)
that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to
describe the devil, however, now the system of translation has been
changed: "the god of this world (the Devil)
hath blinded the minds of them which believe not." According to the system of the previous
verse and the English language, the translation of the description of
the Devil should also have been written as "The God" with a
capital "G." If Paul was inspired to use the exact same
words to describe the Devil, then why should we change it? Why
is "The God" translated as simply "the god"
when referring to the devil, while "divine" is translated as
the almighty "God" when referring to "The
Word"? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the
"translation" of the Bible took place? Well, what is the difference between saying
"the word was God," and between saying "the
word was a god (divine)"? Are they not the same? Far from it!
Let us read the bible: "I have said, Ye (the Jews) are
gods; and all of you are children of the most High"
Psalms 82:6: "And the LORD said unto Moses, See,
I have made you a god to Pharaoh"
Exodus 7:1 "the god of this world (the Devil)
hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."
2 Corinthians 4:4 What does all of this mean? Let me explain. In the West, it is common when one wishes
to praise someone to say "You are a prince," or "You are
an angel" ..etc. When someone says this do they mean that that
person is the son of the King of England, or a divine spiritual being?
There is a very slight grammatical difference between saying "You
are a prince" and between saying "You are THE
prince," however, the difference in meaning is quite dramatic. Further, it is necessary when translating a
verse to also take into account the meaning as understood by the people
of that age who spoke that language. One of the biggest problems with
the Bible as it stands today is that it forces us to look at ancient
Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by
people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called
"original" manuscripts of the NT available today are written
in Greek or Latin. The Jews had no trouble reading such verses as Psalms
82:6, and Exodus 7:1, while still affirming that there is only one God
in existence and vehemently denying the divinity of all but God
Almighty. It is the continuous filtration of these manuscripts through
different languages and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church's
extensive efforts to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew
Gospels (see last quarter of this chapter) which has led to this
misunderstanding of the verses. The Americans have a saying: "Hit the
road men." It means "It is time for you to leave."
However, if a non-American were to receive this command without any
explanation then it is quite possible that we would find him beating the
road with a stick. Did he understand the words? Yes! Did he understand
the meaning? No! In the Christian church we would be hard
pressed to find a single priest or nun who does not address their
followers as "my children." They would say: "Come here my
children", or "Be wary of evil my children" ... etc. What
do they mean? A fact that many people do not realize is
that around 200AD spoken Hebrew had virtually disappeared from everyday
use as a spoken language. It was not until the 1880s that a conscious
effort was made by Eliezer Ben-Yehudah to revive the dead language. Only
about a third of current spoken Hebrew and basic grammatical structures
come from biblical and Mishnaic sources. The rest was introduced in the
revival and includes elements of other languages and cultures including
the Greek and Arabic languages. Even worse
than these two examples are cases when translation into a different
languages can result in a reversal of the meaning. For example,
in the West, when someone loves something they say "It warmed my
heart." In the Middle East, the same expression of joy would be
conveyed with the words: "It froze my heart." If an
Mideasterner were to greet a Westerner with the words: "It froze
my heart to see you," then obviously this statement would not
be greeted with a whole lot of enthusiasm from that Westerner, and vice
versa. This is indeed one of the major reasons why the Muslims have been
so much more successful in the preservation of their holy text than the
Christians or the Jews; because the language of the Qur'an has remained
from the time of Muhammad (pbuh) to the present day a living language,
the book itself has always been in the hands of the people (and not the
"elite"), and the text of the book remains in the original
language of Muhammad (pbuh). For this reason, a translator must not and
should not "translate" in a vacuum while disregarding the
culture and traditions of the people who wrote these words. As we have
just seen, it was indeed quite common among the Jews to use the word
"god" (divine) to convey a sense of supreme power or authority
to human beings. This system, however, was never popularly adopted by
them to mean that these individuals were in any way omnipotent,
superhuman, or equal to the Almighty. 2) Basic message of John:
Now that we have seen the correct
translation of the verse of John 1:1, let us go a little further in our
study of the intended meaning of this verse. This verse was taken from
the "Gospel of John." The very best person to ask to explain
what is meant by a given statement is the author of that statement
himself. So let us ask "John" what is his mental picture of
God and Jesus (pbuh) which he wishes to convey to us: "Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent
greater than he that sent him." John 13:16. So the author of John tells us that God is
greater than Jesus. If the author of this Gospel did indeed wish us to
understand that Jesus and God are "one and the same," then can
someone be greater than himself? Similarly, "Ye have heard how I said unto you,
I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice,
because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than
I." John 14:28. Can someone "go" to himself? Can
someone be "greater" than himself? "These words spake Jesus, and
lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come;
glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:"
John 17:1. If John meant to tell us that "Jesus
and God are one and the same" then shall we understand from this
verse that God is saying to Himself "Self, glorify me so that I may
glorify myself"? Does this sound like this is the message of John? "While I (Jesus) was with them in
the world, I kept them in thy (God's) name: those that thou gavest me I
have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the
scripture might be fulfilled." John 17:12. If the author of John wanted us to believe
that Jesus and God are one person then are we to understand from this
verse that God is saying to Himself "Self, while I was in the world
I kept them in your name, self. Those who I gave to myself I have kept
..."? Is this what the author intended us to understand from his
writings? "Father, I will that they also,
whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my
glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the
foundation of the world." John 17:24. Similarly, did the author intend us to
interpret this as "Self, I will that they also whom I have given
myself be with me where I am; that they my behold my glory which I have
given myself, for I loved myself before the foundation of the
world"? So, we begin
to see that in order to understand the writings of a given author, it is
necessary to not take a single quotation from him in a vacuum and then
interpret his whole message based upon that one sentence (and a badly
mistranslated version of that sentence at that). 3) Who wrote the "Gospel of
John"?: The "Gospel of John" is popularly
believed by the majority of regular church-goers to be the work of the
apostle John the son of Zebedee. However, when consulting Christianity's
more learned scholars of Church history, we find that this is far from
the case. These scholars draw our attention to the fact that internal
evidence provides serious doubt as to whether the apostle John the son
of Zebedee wrote this Gospel himself. In the dictionary of the Bible by
John Mckenzie we read "A. Feuillet notes that authorship
here may be taken loosely." Such claims are based on such verses as
21:24: "This is the disciple which
testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his
testimony is true."? Did the apostle John write this about
himself? Also see 21:20, 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20-23. The
"disciple who Jesus loved" according to the Church is John
himself, but the author of this gospel speaks of him as a different
person. Further, The Gospel of John was written at
or near Ephesus between the years 110 and 115 (some say 95-100) of the
Christian era by this, or these, unknown author(s). According to R. H.
Charles, Alfred Loisy, Robert Eisler, and other scholars of Christian
history, John of Zebedee was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE,
long before the fourth Gospel was written. Did the Holy Ghost
"inspire" the apostle John's ghost to write this gospel sixty
years after he was killed? . In other words, what we have here is a
gospel which is popularly believed to have been written by the apostle
John, but which in fact was not written by him. In fact no one really
knows for certain who wrote this gospel. "Since the beginning of the period
of modern critical study, however, there has been much controversy about
[the Gospel of John's] authorship, place of origin, theological
affiliations and background, and historical value" The
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 2, Abingdon Press, p. 932 4) Who "inspired" the author
of this gospel to write this verse?:
The words of John 1:1 are acknowledged by
most reputable Christian scholar of the Bible as the words of another
Jew, Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD), who claimed no divine inspiration
for them and who wrote them decades before the "gospel of
John" was ever conceived. Groliers encyclopedia has the following
to say under the heading "Logos"("the word"): "Heraclitus was the earliest Greek
thinker to make logos a central concept ......In the New Testament, the
Gospel According to Saint John gives a central place to logos; the
biblical author describes the Logos as God, the Creative Word, who took
on flesh in the man Jesus Christ. Many have traced John's conception to
Greek origins--perhaps through the intermediacy of eclectic texts like
the writings of Philo of Alexandria." T. W. Doane says: "The works of Plato were
extensively studied by the Church Fathers, one of whom joyfully
recognizes in the great teacher, the schoolmaster who, in the fullness
of time, was destined to educate the heathen for Christ, as Moses did
the Jews. The celebrated passage : "In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God" is a fragment of
some Pagan treatise on the Platonic philosophy, evidently written by
Irenaeus. It is quoted by Amelius, a Pagan philosopher as strictly
applicable to the Logos, or Mercury, the Word, apparently as an
honorable testimony borne to the Pagan deity by a barbarian........We
see then that the title "Word" or "Logos," being
applied to Jesus, is another piece of Pagan amalgamation with
Christianity. It did not receive its authorized Christian form until the
middle of the second century after Christ. The ancient pagan Romans
worshipped a Trinity. An oracle is said to have declared that there was
'First God, then the Word, and with them the Spirit'. Here we see the
distinctly enumerated, God, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit or Holy
Ghost, in ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of this capital
- that of Jupiter Capitolinus - was dedicated to three deities, which
three deities were honored with joint worship." From Bible
Myths and their parallels in other religions, pp. 375-376. 6) What was "The Word"?
"O people of the book! commit no
excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ
Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His
Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him so
believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Three," desist!
It will be better for you, for Allah is one God. Glory be to him. Far
exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the
heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of
affairs." The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):171 In the Qur'an we are told that when God
Almighty wills something he merely says to it "Be" and it is. "Verily! Our (Allah's) Word unto a
thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it "Be!" -
and it is" The noble Qur'an, Al-Nahil(16):40 (please
also read chapter 14) This is the Islamic viewpoint of "The
Word." "The Word" is literally God's utterance
"Be." This is held out by the Bible where thirteen verses
later in John 1:14 we read: "And the Word was made flesh". In the Qur'an, we read: "The similitude of Jesus before
Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him:
'Be.' And he was." The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):59. Regarding what is meant by Allah by "a
spirit preceding from him" I shall simply let Allah Himself
explain: "And [remember] when Allah said to
the angles: 'I shall create a human (Adam) from sounding clay, from
altered mud. So when I have fashioned him and have breathed into him of
my spirit, then fall down in prostration before him'"
The noble
Qur'an, Al-Hijr(15):29 For more on this topic, please read section
1.2.3.8 Let us once
again update our table:
1.2.2.7
John 10:30 The third verse which Christians claim
validates the doctrine of the trinity is the verse of John 10:30 "I and my father are one." This verse, however is quoted out of
context. The complete passage, starting with John 10:23, reads as
follows: "And Jesus walked in the temple in
Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him,
How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us
plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works
that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe
not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear
my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them
eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck
them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all;
and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my
Father are one." John 10:23-30 In divinity? In a holy "Trinity"?
No! They are one in PURPOSE. Just as no one shall pluck them out of
Jesus' hand, so too shall no one pluck them out of God's hand. Need more proof? Then read: "Neither pray I for these alone,
but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That
they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that
they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast
sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they
may be one, even as we are one." John 17:20-22 Is all of mankind also part of the
"Trinity"? Such terminology can be found in many other
places, read for example: "Know ye not that your bodies are
the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make
them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he
which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be
one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit," 1 Corinthians 6:15-17 And also "One God and Father of all, who is
above all, and through all, and in you all."
Ephesians 4:6 And "For as the (human) body is one,
and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many,
are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized
into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or
free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is
not one member, but many." 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 Once we read the above verses and
understand what the message was that Paul was trying to get across, then
we can begin to understand his words in such places as "There is one body, and one Spirit,
even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith,
one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through
all, and in you all." Ephesians 4:4 "St. Paul" was speaking about
Christian unity, not about a plurality of gods merged into one body. As
we shall soon see, he was completely ignorant of where his teachings
would later lead, and how decades later, they would be the foundations
which would spawn the "Trinity" doctrine. Once again,
here is our updated table:
1.2.2.8
Genesis 1:26 In the Book of Genesis 1:26, we read: "And God said, Let us make man in
our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish
of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth." In this and other verses of the Bible, God
refers to Himself as "us" and "our," etc. Does not
the use of the terms "us" and "our" prove that the
God which created all of creation is not a singular entity but a
Trinity? For the answer to this question please
refer to chapter 14 which discusses the use of plural pronouns with
respect to God in both the Bible as well as the Qur'an. And our table now looks like this:
1.2.2.9
John 14:8-9 Well, what about the verse "He that hath seen me hath seen the
father." Let us look at the context: "Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew
us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so
long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath
seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the
Father?" John 14:8-9 Philip wanted to see God with his own eyes,
but this is impossible since no one can ever do ever do that. The Bible
says: "No man hath seen God at any
time," John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any
time," 1 John 4:12 So Jesus simply told him that his own
actions and miracles should be a sufficient proof of the existence of
God without God having to physically come down and let himself be seen
every time someone is doubtful. This is equivalent to for example
If we want to insist that when Philip saw
Jesus (pbuh), he had actually physically seen God "the
Father" because Jesus "is" the father and both are one
"Trinity," and Jesus is the "incarnation" of God,
then this will force us to conclude that John 1:18, 1 John 4:12, ..etc.
are all lies. Well, is Philip the only one who ever
"saw the father"? Let us read: "Not that any man hath seen the
Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." John 6:46 Who is this who "is of God" and
had seen the Father you ask? Let us once again ask the Bible: "He that is of God heareth God's
words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." John 8:47. And "Beloved, follow not that which is
evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that
doeth evil hath not seen God" 3 John 1:11. Have all people who have done good also physically
seen God? In "The New Catholic
Encyclopedia" (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur,
indicating official approval) we get a glimpse of how the concept of the
Trinity was not introduced into Christianity until close to four hundred
years after Jesus (pbuh): ".......It is difficult in the
second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and
straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and
theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity. Trinitarian
discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat unsteady
silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the
part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly
growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of
Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification.
There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians
of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an
unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian
origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only
then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God
in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and
thought ... it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal
development" (emphasis added).
"The New Catholic Encyclopedia"
Volume XIV, p. 295. They admit it!.
Jesus' twelve apostles lived and died never having heard of any
"Trinity" ! Did Jesus leave his closest and dearest
followers so completely and utterly baffled and lost that they never
even realized the "true" nature of God? Did he leave them in
such black darkness that neither they nor their children, nor yet their
children's children would ever come to recognize the "true"
nature of the One they are to worship? Do we really want to allege that
Jesus was so thoroughly incompetent in the discharge of his duties that
he left his followers in such utter chaos that it would take them fully
three centuries after his departure to finally piece together the nature
of the One whom they are to worship? Why did Jesus never, even once,
just say "God, the Holy Ghost and I are three Persons in one
Trinity. Worship all of us as one"? If he had only chosen to
make just one such explicit statement to them he could have
relieved Christianity of centuries of bitter disputes, division, and
animosity. Top Harpur writes in his book "For
Christ's Sake": "What is most embarrassing for the
church is the difficulty of proving any of these statements of dogma
from the new Testament documents. You simply cannot find the doctrine of
the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St. Paul has the highest view
of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does
Jesus himself anywhere explicitly claim to be the second person in the
Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father. As a pious Jew, he would
have been shocked and offended by such an Idea....(this is) in itself
bad enough. But there is worse to come. This research has lead me to
believe that the great majority of regular churchgoers are, for all
practical purposes, tritheists. That is, they profess to believe in one
God, but in reality they worship three.." The Encyclopaedia Britannica states under
the heading "Trinity": "in Christian doctrine, the unity
of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead Neither
the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New
Testament,… The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula
for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is 'of the same
substance [homoousios] as the Father,' even though it said very little
about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended
and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century,
under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory
of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took
substantially the form it has maintained ever since." Once again,
let us have a look at our table:
1.2.2.10
John 14:6 Some people read: "I am the way, ...no one comes to
the Father, but through me." When reading this verse, for some reason
some people see in it a confirmation of the Trinity. Although I can not
see how they can read either an explicit or even an implicit reference
to the Trinity in this verse, still, due to it's popularity it deserves
to be studied There appear to be a sizable number of
Christians who when reading this verse interpret it to state that Jesus
is God and that no one shall enter into heaven except if they worship
Jesus. For this reason this verse should ideally be dealt with in
section 1.2.3 (The 'Son of God'), however, since it is brought up so
often in discussions of the Trinity it appears to be appropriate to
discuss it here. The popular perception that this verse
claims that Jesus requires our worship in order for us to receive
salvation is not the intended meaning of this verse. However, in order
for us to recognize this fact it is necessary to study it's context. If we were to back up a little and read
from the beginning of this chapter, we would find that just before Jesus
spoke these words, he said; "In my Father's house are many
mansions (dwelling places); if it were not so, I would have told you;
for I go to prepare a mansion (a dwelling place) for you." John 14:2 The above statement is quite clear. It is
in exact conformance to the teachings of the Qur'an. In the Qur'an we
are told how God sent messengers to all tribes and nations. We are told
that the basic message which was given to each of these tribes was the
same: "Worship God alone and worship none else." Some of the
secondary details of this worship might differ from one tribe or nation
to the next according to God's infinite wisdom and his knowledge of
those people. It was made very clear to each prophet that he was not to
preach to anyone but his own people. It was further made clear to this
messenger's people that if they were to obey him that they would receive
the reward of God. God would not hold them accountable for what any
other tribe or nation did or did not do. This would continue until God's
last messenger, Muhammad (pbuh) would be sent to all mankind as the seal
of the prophets. This is exactly what Jesus is saying here.
He said that in God's mansion there are "many"
rooms. Jesus was sent to guide to only one of them. The countless
other rooms were reserved for other tribes and nations if they would
obey their messengers. However, Jesus was telling his followers that
they need not worry themselves about the other rooms. Anyone from among
his people who wished to enter into the room which was reserved for them
could only do so if they followed Jesus and obeyed his command. So Jesus
confirmed that he was going to prepare "a" mansion and not
"all" the mansions in "my Father's house". Further, the verse clearly states that
Jesus was the "WAY" to a mansion. He did not say that he is
the "DESTINATION" which would be the case if he were God. What
else would we expect a prophet of God to say except "I
am the 'way' to God's mercy"? That is his job. That is
what a prophet does. It is why God chose him in the first
place; in order to guide to the mercy of God. This is indeed confirmed
in John 10:9 where Jesus tells us that he is "the door" to
"the pasture." In other words, he is the "prophet"
who guides his people to "heaven" (see also Jn. 12:44). Once
again, this is the message of Islam. Finally, remember "Not every one that says to
me(Jesus); 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who
does the will of my Father, who is in heaven." Matthew.7:21 Here, once again is our table:
1.2.2.11
John 20:28 "Then saith he (Jesus) to Thomas,
Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand,
and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And
Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." Once again, when I was first quoted this
verse, I immediately thought that I had at long last found my elusive
goal. Finally, I had found a verse that explicitly claims that Jesus
"is" God. However, it was not long after that, upon further
research into Christian theological literature, I once again would come
to find that the true meaning of this verse was quite different than
what a casual glance might have me believe. This verse is at best an example of an
"implicit" affirmation of a "Duality." This is
because this verse appears to imply that Thomas thought that Jesus was
God Almighty. The words are those of Thomas and not Jesus. However,
there are a number of problems with interpreting this verse to mean that
Jesus is God. Firstly, the phrase "Thomas
answered" is somewhat misleading since nowhere before this verses
was Thomas asked a question. Thomas' words could more appropriately be
referred to as an "outburst" or an "exclamation."
This is indeed why most translations of the Bible (excluding the King
James Version) follow this exclamation with an "exclamation
mark" as follows: "And Thomas answered and
said unto him, My Lord and my God !" Christian scholars such as Theodore of
Mopsuestia (c.350-428), the Bishop of Mopsuestia, interpreted this verse
to not be directed at Jesus but at God "the Father." Thus, it
is similar in meaning to our modern exclamations of surprise "My
God!" or "My Lord!." In other words, this was an outburst
designed to display surprise and disbelief rather than an affirmation
that Jesus was in fact God "the Father." Secondly, the word translated in this verse
as "God" is indeed the Greek "Ho theos" (The
God), and not "theos" (divine). However, when studying the
history of this verse in the ancient Biblical manuscripts from which our
modern Bibles have been compiled we find an interesting fact,
specifically, that the ancient Biblical manuscripts themselves are not
in agreement as to the correct form of this word. For example, the codex
Bezae (or codex D) is a fifth century manuscript containing Greek and
Latin texts of the Gospels and Acts, which was discovered in the 16th
century by Theodore Beza in a monastery in Lyon. The predecessor of the
codex Bezae and other church manuscripts do not contain the article
"Ho" ("THE") in their text (The Orthodox Corruption
of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman, p. 266). What this means is that this
verse in it's original form, if it is to be understood to be addressing
Jesus (pbuh) himself, only addresses him as "divine" and not
as the "Almighty God." Thus, it is similar in meaning to the
meaning conveyed when prophet Moses is described as being a
"god" in Exodus 7:1 (or when all Jews are described as being
"gods" in Psalms 82:6, or when the devil is described as god
in 2 Corinthians 4:4), effectively reducing the exclamation of Thomas,
if it were indeed directed to Jesus, to "My lord the divine!,"
or "my divine lord!" For a Muslim the matter is simple. The
Qur'an very explicitly states that Jesus was not forsaken by God to the
Jews to be crucified, rather "it was made to appear so to
them." So the claim that Jesus came to Thomas and asked him to
witness the imprint of the nail in his hand and the spear in his side
is, for a Muslim, clear evidence that this whole episode was a
fabrication and later insertion. However, since a Muslim's claim in this
regard would not be regarded as authoritative unbiased proof in this
matter, therefore, it is necessary to use a little logic to arrive at
the truth. Since we now have on our hands a dispute
between the ancient Biblical manuscripts themselves as to what Thomas
actually said, therefore, let me pose this very simple request. Please
get out a pencil and a piece of paper, stop reading this book for the
moment, and in your own words, please write down in about twenty words,
very concisely but as directly as possible, what is the foremost obvious
conclusion you are able to draw from Thomas' outburst. Study your words
carefully and write them down as if your very life and the salvation of
thousands of generations depend on what you are about to say. Make it
clear and to the point. Have you finished?. Okay, let us continue. Let us now compare what you have just
written with what the actual author of this Gospel had written when
faced with the same requirements I have just presented you with. If we
were to continue reading from this same Gospel of John, we will find
that immediately following this discourse between Jesus and Thomas
depicted by the author of "John," the same author of
"John" goes on to write: "And many other signs truly did
Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this
book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through
his name." John 20:30-31 If the author of John had recognized
Thomas' words to be a testimony that "Jesus is God" and if the
author interpreted Jesus' silence to be his approval of this claimed
testimony, then John would have written "that ye might believe that
Jesus is the Almighty God" and not "that ye might believe that
Jesus is the Christ..." (For an explanation of the terms "son
of God" and "Christ" please read sections 1.2.3.2, and
1.2.3.8 which are coming up soon). To make this matter clearer let us first
remember that Christian scholars tell us that the disciples did not
fully comprehend who Jesus "was" until after the resurrection.
They admit that the Trinity was not "fully" incorporated into
Christianity until three hundred years after the departure of Jesus (see
rest of chapter one). However, they then point to this verse in order to
exhibit to us how in the end the "true" nature of Jesus was
made clear to the apostles. Now, we need to ask, what is the single most
important piece of information we have just learned from Thomas'
outburst? What is the single most glaring, obvious, and outstanding,
piece of information we have learned from this statement? Any random
missionary would tell us that it is the fact that "Jesus is
God!" In other words, the disciples have just spent many years with
Jesus learning from him, following him, obeying him, and preaching his
message. Suddenly he is allegedly taken away, crucified, buried, and
then he is resurrected. Now Thomas sees him and according to the
testimony of "John," he realizes that Jesus is "God the
Father" who has come down to earth to walk among us. So what would
we logically expect to be the foremost topic of most urgent and critical
concern in the eyes of the author of "John"? Obviously, it
should be the instillation within us of the "fact" that
"Jesus is the 'incarnation' of God Almighty!" Does this not
stand to reason? Why then does the author now casually disregard such an
earth shattering observation and choose to simply return to describing
Jesus with the benign terms of "son of God" and "Messiah/Christ"(see
sections 1.2.3.2, and 1.2.3.8)? Did the author of this book not make the
connection which we have just made? Did the author of "John"
have less understanding of what he was writing than us? Think about it. Furthermore, some Christian scholars
believe that the whole episode of "doubting Thomas" is a later
"insertion." "The Five Gospels" mark this passage as
being a complete fabrication and not the word of Jesus (pbuh). There are a number of other verses which
could be brought up in this comparison, however, the ones just quoted
are the strongest and most often quoted verses. A number of other verses
that are brought up in such discussions shall be dealt with in chapter
1.2.3 since they are more directly applicable to the concept of the
divinity of Jesus or the claim that he is the physical/begotten son of
God than they are to the discussion of the Trinity. Finally, let
us now have a final look at our table:
As we can see from the table, there is not
a single explicit or implicit statement in the whole Bible confirming
the "Trinity." Indeed this was the very reason why it was
decided so many centuries ago to insert the verse of 1 John 5:7 into the
Bible. Because without this fabricated verse there would be absolutely
no earthly way to prove that God is a Trinity. In such a case we would
simply have to take the Church's word for it. However, by the grace of
God Almighty, this fabrication was not exposed by Muslims, it was not
exposed by a liberal Christian, it was not even exposed by a
conservative Christian, rather it was exposed by thirty two
conservative biblical scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty
cooperating Christian denominations. No matter what your church or
denomination, chances are that it was a member of the committee that
compiled the RSV Bible and, among other changes, threw out 1 John 5:7 as
a complete fabrication. Does it not seem a little strange that God
did not choose to include just one single explicit statement in the
whole Bible where He said "I am three gods in one."? Does it not seem just a little strange that
we have been reduced to picking and choosing implicit references
to a "Duality" and trying to "piece together" the
nature of God? Why did God feel the need to repeatedly explicitly
state throughout the Bible that He is ONE, yet when it comes time for
Him to explicitly state that He is THREE suddenly it is left up to our
intellect to "observe" or "gather" that He
"must" be a "Trinity."? Why was this matter not resolved back at
the time of prophets Noah or Abraham or Moses (pbut)? Why do we not find
a single Jew worshipping a Trinity? I know that
there are still many unanswered questions, however, please bear with me,
the picture shall begin to become much clearer once we get into sections
1.2.3 and 1.2.4 by the will of Allah. 1.2.2.12
A logical analysis As we have seen at the very beginning of
our analysis, Jesus (pbuh) has commanded us to "love the Lord
thy God ... with all thy mind," Mark 12:30. We were also taught
that "For God is not [the author] of confusion" 1
Corinthians 14:33. So, if God's nature is not one of
confusion, then it should not be necessary to command us to simply
"have faith" in the Trinity because it is a
"mystery." Is this not fair? Is this not what the Bible and
Jesus himself say? So let us use our minds and be inquisitive. Let us
ask questions so that we may indeed be able to truthfully claim that we
have loved God "with all our minds." Now, most Christians today are taught that
because of Adam, all of humanity has inherited sin. This sin was so
great that it could not be forgiven by any normal means. This sin was so
great that God could not simply say "You are all forgiven."
This sin was so great that even the sacrifice of a sinless mortal would
not do. This sin was so great that it was necessary for God Almighty to
offer up His only begotten son as the only possible purifying sacrifice
for the sins of humanity. The only possible way for God to forgive
humanity this tremendous sin was to have his son delivered to his mortal
enemies so that they might beat him, spit on him, whip him, strip him,
cut him, humiliate him, hang him up on the cross, and finally kill him.
In this manner, God would finally be able to grant us the forgiveness He
so wishes to bestow upon us. (1 Corinthians 15:3 "Christ died
for our sins", Romans 5:6 "Christ died for the
ungodly" etc.) However, when we look closely at this
picture we find a number of problems. For example, if Jesus (pbuh) is
part of a divine Trinity which makes up the essence of God Almighty, and
if this God is ONE God and not THREE gods, and if Jesus (pbuh) died on
the cross, then what happened to God Almighty?. Did the Trinity die
also, or was a third of the Trinity ripped away from the whole, then
tortured, killed, and sent to hell for three days, while the remaining
two thirds (of God?) remained in it's crippled form a safe distance
away? Who was overseeing the heavens and the earth while all of this was
happening? A crippled Trinity? No one? If I am made up of heart, mind,
and soul, and one of them dies; what happens to the rest
of me? Are they ONE or THREE? If God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are
three names for the same being, (definition of the "Trinity"
required by Isaiah 43:10-11 and many other verses) and not three
separate gods, then the "death of Jesus" is just another way
of saying "the death of God the 'Father'," which is also
another way of saying "the death of the Holy Ghost." Some members of the clergy will object that
it was not Jesus "per se" who died, but rather it was only
"his human form" that died. His "godly" form was not
affected. It is described as one describes someone removing his coat.
This leaves us with a dilemma, because it leaves us with one of two
cases: 1) Either Jesus (pbuh) "himself"
did NOT die, but only shed his earthly body (as it were), and in
this case we must ask, where then is the great sacrifice in this
shedding of a useless shell? Did we not just agree a few minutes ago
that the sacrifice of a sinless mortal was not sufficient in order to
erase the sins of all of humanity? Did we not just claim that it must be
a sinless "GOD" that must die? How then is Jesus' shedding of
this useless mortal shell which is not his actual essence an ultimate
sacrifice in atonement for all of mankind's sins? How is it any
different than the sacrifice of any normal human being? Did the death of
Jesus' coat atone for the sins of all mankind? Can Jesus not simply make
one thousand more human "shells" for himself to inhabit? Is
his discarding of one of them an "ultimate sacrifice for the sins
of all humanity"? 2) Or, Jesus (pbuh)
"himself" died, in which case, since he is claimed to
be part of the "Trinity", and the "Trinity" is
claimed to be ONE god, not three (required by Isaiah 43:10-11, Deut.
4:35, 4:39, 1 Kings 8:60, Isaiah 45:5 and many other verses), then God,
Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all claimed to have died, since
they are all "the same essence." Further, if all three are
indeed ONE God then the death of this one God contradicts many verses
such as: "But the LORD is the true God, he
is the living God, and an everlasting king." Jeremiah 10:10 Also, if the giver of life is dead then who
shall bring Him back to life? The only way out of this dilemma is to
accept the truth, that Jesus (pbuh) was not God but only an elect
messenger of God. Remember when Jesus (pbuh) is alleged to
have died?: "And when Jesus had cried with a
loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and
having said thus, he gave up the ghost"
Luke 23:46 When people die they go to their Lord to be
judged. If Jesus (pbuh) was, as claimed, a part of a Trinity and the
Trinity is only ONE god (as required by the above verses), then Jesus
was with God in a Trinity before his death. It was
only after his death that he was claimed to have left
God, died, and gone down into hell for three days. However, this verse
tells us a completely different story. It claims that Jesus' essence was
somewhere other than already with God while he was on
earth (otherwise it would not have to go to Him) and was now going
to God. Also read John 17:11: "…I come to thee. Holy
Father." And John 17:13: "And now come I to thee"...etc.
Sadly enough, most Christians are taught to
brush off these matters with words like "It is incomprehensible,
that is why it must be true," or "believe blindly or you will
lose your soul."? Have we so soon forgotten "For God is not
of confusion" 1 Corinthians 14:33 ? Have we so soon forgotten "thou
shalt love the Lord thy God ... with all thy mind," Mark
12:30?. Many missionaries attempt to prove that God
is "three" by drawing analogies between God and His creation.
They say: "There are three members in a family, father, mother and
children. There are three states for water, ice, water and steam, etc.
Don't you see? God is three!" Well, if this is the case then we need to
notice that "Each person gets only one life. There is only one sun.
There is only one earth. Each person only has one heart and one mind,
etc." Similarly, "We all have only two eyes.
We all have only two ears. Days are split into two parts, morning and
night, etc." As we can see, following such tactics is
indeed a frivolous pursuit. Such examples could be extended forever. We
could say "There are four seasons in every year. There are five
fingers on each hand. The Jews were only allowed by God to work for six
days. There are seven days in every week, ..." but you get the
picture. Now, God Almighty is claimed to have
"begotten" Jesus (pbuh). He is claimed to be the
"father" of Jesus. Naturally a father is present before he
"begets" his son (no matter how you wish to define
"beget"). Before Jesus (pbuh) was "begotten," was
the "Trinity" a "Duality"? Was God complete? Explain
Isaiah 43:10-11. If Jesus (pbuh) was "begotten" then he is not
eternal, but the definition of the Trinity which was first put together
in 325 C.E. when the Trinity was first officially defined requires the
"co-eternity" of God and Jesus (pbuh) (see below). If Jesus is one face of a
"Trinity" and the Trinity is one god not many, then
anyone who sees Jesus has seen God, however, John 1:18 says "No man hath seen God at any
time." And we have just read in the Athanasian
creed (Nicean creed) that "God" is a "Trinity" made
up of "the Father," the "Son," and the "Holy
Ghost." We also read therein that God is not three gods but one
God. If this is the case then anyone who has seen Jesus has seen
"God." But the Bible tells us that this is not the case. Jesus (pbuh) claims to not even know when
"that day" is "But of that day and that hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son,
but the Father" Mark 13:32. Is he not part of God? Is the
"Trinity" not ONE god? The fact that one
"personality" of God has knowledge not available to the other
"two thirds" is a clear indication that they are distinct and
separate beings, and not three faces of one being. There are many such questions to be raised
about this supposed Trinity which defy common sense. When someone loves
God "with all thy mind" and they "Prove all
things; hold fast that which is good" are they not presented
with countless contradictions regarding the "Trinity"? I am
speaking about the logic of Jesus (pbuh) here and not blind
faith. Jesus is beseeching us to use our minds but we would rather
follow others who demand blind faith. Jesus (pbuh) tells us "If a man love me, he will keep my
words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make
our abode with him." John 14:23. Sadly, the same people who love him dearly
have now been taught that in order to love Jesus they must completely
disregard everything he ever taught his followers and must follow others
who are better able to explain his message than himself. In effect, his
words have been totally abandoned (see below). "Say: 'O people of the Book! exceed
not in your religion the bounds [of what is proper], trespassing beyond
the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went astray in
times gone by, who misled many, and strayed [themselves] from the
straight path.'" The noble
Qur'an, Al-Maida(5):77 1.2.2.13
On "steam, water, and ice " If I have three balls of clay and I press
them together into one ball then they become ONE but now it is
impossible to retrieve the original three exactly as they were
originally. If I have three bricks and I stack them
above each other then I can separate them, but I can not call the three
bricks ONE brick. By far, the most common analogy given for
the "Trinity" by the church is that of the three forms of
water, specifically, ice, liquid, and steam. They say, just as water is
"one" but with three "states" or three
"forms," so too is God Almighty one but with three states. On the face of it this appears to be quite
a compelling argument. So let us apply it to a few verses of the Bible
in order to see whether it holds up to scrutiny and is actually endorsed
by the Bible. In other words, it is necessary to see whether the Bible
itself actually confirms such a picture of God. Only then can we accept
or reject this analogy. If I have a cup of water which can become
steam, liquid, or ice, then it is not possible for me to drink the
"liquid" while the "ice" and "steam"
remain inside the glass. It is not possible for the "liquid"
to beseech the ice to save it from being drunk while the ice stayed a
safe distance away and was not itself drunk. This is simple logic. In a
similar manner, if God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all merely three
"personalities" or three "states" for one being,
namely God Almighty, then it is not possible for one
"personality" of God to DIE while the
other two remained a safe distance away unharmed by death (Mark 15:37,
John 19:33, Romans 5:6,...etc.). Some will then solve this dilemma, as seen
in the previous section, by claiming that Jesus (pbuh) did not actually
"die," rather, he simply shed his earthly "skin."
His actual essence was not killed. In this case it is
necessary to ask: where then is the great sacrifice? If one of us has
five thousand coats, and he takes one off and throws it in the fire then
puts on a different one and says: "I did this as an ultimate
sacrifice for you," is this truly an ultimate sacrifice if he can
simply create one thousand more earthly "skins" to inhabit in
place of the one he shed? Does his taking off of his coat and putting on
a new one after three days "atone" for the sins of all of the
"inherently wicked and sinful mankind" from the beginning of
time? "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God ... with all thy
mind ... this is the first commandment" Mark 12:30 There are many other situations in the
Bible that contradict this analogy and the theory of "three"
gods. For example: Would it be logical to picture the
"ice" form of a bucket of water praying to the
"steam" form of itself (e.g. Luke 6:12).
Further, did water start out as liquid and then decide to
"beget" for itself another personality as "ice" and
then add on a third personality as "steam"? Did God start out
with one "personality" and then one day "beget"
for Himself multiple personalities to keep Him company?. Does He usually
speak to His other personalities and beseech them for salvation?
(Matthew 27:46) Did He sacrifice one of His personalities to
"save" mankind? Do some of His personalities have knowledge
not available to others (Mark 13:32)? Are some of His
"personalities" more powerful than others (John 14:28)? Are
some of his personalities submissive to others (Luke 22:41-44)? Is this
our mental picture of God? How will we answer Him on the day of judgment
when He asks us about these claims we have made against Him? In order to
demonstrate the absurdity of this "ice, water, and steam"
theory, let us use the following analogy: Military/Student Joe:
Assume that "Joe" is a university
student who is also serving in the army. In such a case we might be able
to say that there are two "personalities" to Joe, a
"student" personality and a "military" personality.
Does this mean that it is logical to imagine "student Joe"
humbling himself before "military Joe" and appealing to him to
have mercy upon him while "military Joe" sat some distance
away accepting "student Joe's" pleas and considering whether
to grant them or not (Matthew 26:39)? Further, if some killers attacked
"student Joe" while he was in the university, would it be
logical for us to claim that "student Joe" ran for the
telephone and pleaded with "military Joe" to quickly come and
save him? Would it be logical to say that "military Joe" did
not answer this plea and "student Joe" was murdered in the
university while "military Joe" remained safe and unharmed in
the military base? Continuing, according to the Bible, God and
Jesus are claimed to not be equal in knowledge nor in power (Mark 13:32,
John 14:28, etc.). So is it then logical in the above analogy to claim
that "military Joe" is stronger than "student Joe"
or that "student Joe" is smarter than "military
Joe"? It is always important when we are
presented with a theory or "explanation" regarding the claimed
"Trinity" to carefully analyze it and apply it to the Bible
and test it thoroughly before accepting it. It is not at all acceptable
to say I can not explain it nor prove it, neither does the Bible
explicitly command me to have blind faith in this matter, yet since the
church told me to do so, therefore, I shall do so. Indeed, Jesus (pbuh)
wanted his followers to think, analyze, study, ask
questions, and interrogate. This is his very FIRST
commandment (Mark 12:30). Indeed, the Bible teaches us "For God
is not [the author] of confusion" 1 Corinthians 14:33. Let us conclude this section with a very
eloquent example which was once presented by the British scholar Richard
Porson. One day, Porson was discussing the "Trinity" with a
Trinitarian friend when a buggy containing three men passed by. "There,"
Porson's friend exclaimed "is an illustration of the
Trinity." Porson replied "No, you must show me one man
in three buggies, if you can." For the historical details of how such a
doctrine was developed in the first place, please read section 1.2.5
which is coming up soon. But first: 1.2.3:
The "son of God "And
unto Him belongs whosoever is in the heavens and the earth and those who
dwell in His presence do not scorn to worship Him nor do they weary.
They glorify Him night and day; They flag not. Or have they chosen gods
from the earth who raise the dead If there were therein gods besides
Allah then verily both (the heavens and the earth) would have gone to
ruin. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the Throne from all they ascribe
(unto Him). He is not questioned as to that which He does, but they will
be questioned. Or have they chosen other gods besides Him, say: Bring
your proof (of their godhead), this is the reminder of those with me and
those before me, but most of them know not the truth so they are averse
(to it). And we sent no messenger before you but we inspired him
(saying): There is no god save Me (Allah) so worship Me. And they say:
The Compassionate has taken unto himself a son. Nay! but (they) are but
honored servants. They speak not until He has spoken and they obey His
command. He knows what is before them and what is behind them and they
cannot intercede except for those whom He accepts and they quake for awe
of Him. And whosoever among them says: I am a god other than Allah, the
same shall We reward with Hell. Thus do We reward the wrong doers."
The Qur'an,
Al-Anbia(21):19-29 "And the angles said 'O Mary, Allah
gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, his name is Messiah, Jesus
son of Mary, High honored in this world and the next, of those near
stationed to Allah." The noble Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):40. We as Muslims do not differ with Christians
in the fact that Jesus (pbuh) was indeed born miraculously without a
human father. Muslims only differ with Christians in the Christian's
claim that Jesus (pbuh) must have a father. Trinitarians believe
that if he has no human father then his father must be God.
Muslims believe that he had no father whatsoever, and this was
the essence of his miraculous birth. "The similitude of Jesus before
Allah is as that of Adam, he created him from dust, then said to him:
'Be' and he was" The noble Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):59. "They say: Allah has taken a son.
Glorified be He! He has no needs! His is all that is in the heavens and
that is in the earth. You have no warrant for this, do you say regarding
Allah that which you know not?" The noble Qur'an, Yunus(10):68 "The Messiah, son of Mary, was only
a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him.
And his mother was a saintly woman. They both used to eat (earthly)
food. See how we make the signs clear for them, then see how they are
deluded!" The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah (5):75. "And this is life eternal, that
they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have
sent." John 17:3. Notice the above words of the Bible: "YOU
the ONLY true God." Most Christians always manage to see
a hidden abstract meaning for the verses of the Bible. Even when they
read the above verse they always manage to understand something totally
different than that which they are reading. They always interpret the
word "you" to be "we," and thus, understand the
above verse to say "WE the only true god." Jesus (pbuh)
is obviously talking to a distinctly different entity than himself and
telling that entity that He ALONE is the only true God. Is Jesus
(pbuh) incapable of saying "I the only true God" or "We
the only true God" if that is what he meant? Can we see the
difference? Mr. Tom Harpur says in the preface to his
book: "The most significant development
since 1986 in this regard has been the discovery of the title "Son
of God" in one of the Qumran papyri (Dead Sea Scrolls) used in
relation to a person other than Jesus.....this simply reinforces the
argument made there that to be called the Son of God in a Jewish setting
in the first century is not by any means the same as being identical
with God Himself." For Christ's Sake, pp. xii. (please read chapter 7 for more on the Dead
Sea Scrolls) With regard to
your second comment, Mr. J, I am not "implying" anything. The Qur'an
clearly states in no uncertain terms that God "created"
Jesus. Let us quote from the unbiased Webster's dictionary as to what is
"implied" by the word "begotten": "To
procreate as the father, sire, to produce as an effect or an
outgrowth." Muslims feel such claims with regard to God
Almighty are an abomination. 1.2.3.1
Anglican bishops declare that Jesus is not God Muslims are not the only ones who believe
that Jesus (pbuh) is mortal and not a god. The Jews also believe this,
in addition to the very first groups of Christianity such as the
Ebonites, the Cerinthians, the Basilidians, the Capocratians, and the
Hypisistarians. The Arians, Paulicians and Goths also accepted Jesus (pbuh)
as a prophet of God. Even in the modern age there are churches in Asia,
in Africa, the Unitarian church, the Jehovah's witnesses, and even the
majority of today's Anglican Bishops do not worship Jesus (pbuh) as
God. In the British newspaper the "Daily
News" 25/6/84 under the heading "Shock survey of Anglican
Bishops" We read "More than half of England's
Anglican Bishops say that Christians are not obliged to believe that
Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey published today. The pole of
31 of England's 39 bishops shows that many of them think that Christ's
miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection might not have happened
exactly as described in the Bible. Only 11 of the bishops insisted that
Christians must regard Christ as both God and man, while 19 said it was
sufficient to regard Jesus as 'God's supreme agent'" But what is a messenger of God? Is he not "God's
supreme agent" ?. This is indeed what God Himself has already
told us in the noble Qur'an 1400 years ago, and exactly what Jesus (pbuh)
himself testified to in the Bible: "And this is life eternal, that
they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent." John 17:3 Astounding, isn't it? With every passing
day, the most learned among the Christian community are slowly
recognizing the truth and drawing closer and closer to Islam. These are
not Muslims who issued this statement. These are not "liberal"
Christians. These are the most learned and most highly esteemed men of
the Anglican Church. These men have dedicated their whole lives to the
study of the religion of Jesus, and their study has driven them to the
truth which God had already revealed to them in the Qur'an 1400 years
ago: That Jesus was not God. That God is not a Trinity. And that the
stories of the ministry of Jesus in the Bible have been extensively
tampered with by the hands of mankind. "And when Allah said: O Jesus, son
of Mary! Did you say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods
beside Allah? he said: Be You glorified. It was not mine to utter that
to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then You knew it. You know
what is in my [innermost] self but I know not what is in Yours. Truly!
You, only You are the Knower of things hidden. I spoke unto them only
that which You commanded me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your
Lord, and I was a witness over them while I dwelt among them, and when
You took me You were the Watcher over them, and You are Witness over all
things." The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):116-118 The Church, as Heinz Zahrnt put it "put
words into the mouth of Jesus which he never spoke and attributed
actions to him which he never performed." One of those who has
shown that most of what the church says about Jesus is baseless is
Rudolph Augustein in his book "Jesus the Son of Man."
Another very comprehensive study of this matter can be found in the book
"The Myth of God Incarnate" which was written by seven
theologian scholars in England in 1977 and edited by John Hick. Their
conclusion in this matter is that Jesus was "a man approved by
God, for a special role within the divine purpose, and..... the later
conception of him as God incarnate ... is a mythological or poetic way
of expressing his significance for us." See also John Mackinnon
Robertson's "Christianity and Mythology" T.W Doane's "The
Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions" (A good
summary of these studies is available in M.F. Ansarei, "Islam
and Christianity in the Modern World"). A University of Richmond professor, Dr.
Robert Alley, after considerable research into newly found ancient
documents concludes that "....The (Biblical) passages where
Jesus talks about the Son of God are later additions.... what the church
said about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have been
consistent with his entire lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the
first three decades after Jesus' death Christianity continued as a sect
within Judaism. The first three decades of the existence of the church
were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they
(the followers) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus." Is there any confirmation of this in the
Bible, yes! If we were to read the Bible we would find that long after
the departure of Jesus, his faithful followers continued to "keep
up their daily attendance at the Temple" (Acts 2:46) It would be
beyond belief to imagine that had Jesus indeed preached to his apostles
that he was God, and if Jesus had indeed commanded them to forsake the
commandments, that they would then disregard all of this and continue to
worship in a Jewish synagogue on a daily basis, let alone the great
Temple itself. It is further beyond belief that the Jews of the Temple
would stand idly by and allow them to do this if they were preaching the
total cancellation of the law of Moses and that Jesus was God. Can any Trinitarian Christian, even in
their wildest fantasies, imagine that the Jews in an orthodox Jewish
synagogue would stand idly by while he took out his cross and prayed to
Jesus in the midst of their synagogue and was publicly calling others to
worship Jesus and forsake the commandments? How much more preposterous
to imagine that they would have nothing to say to someone who did that
in their most sacred of all synagogues, the Temple, on a daily basis
yet. This is further evidence in support of the Qur'an, that Jesus only
called his followers to a continuation of the religion of Moses and not
by any means to the total cancellation and destruction of that law. In the previous section, we read the
following verses of the Bible:
Now we should begin to ask ourselves: If
there was no god before or after God Almighty, then how
was Jesus (pbuh) "begotten" as a god? The answer is: he
was not. He was a mortal man, not a god. We even have the testimony of
the majority of today's Anglican Bishops in defense of this basic truth.
If we want the testimony of a trustworthy witness then how much more
trustworthy a witness shall we ever find than the majority of the most
learned and respected conservative Christians of the Anglican Church? The Bible only
preaches that Jesus is God and that God is a Trinity to those who do not
know it's innermost details and the truth of the history of the Church
as these men have come to know it. But let us move on in our study of
the Biblical verses so that we can see only a small sampling of the
evidence that has made the truth clear to these men. 1.2.3.2
How many "Sons" does God have? Many people tell us "but the Bible
clearly says that Jesus is the Son of God. How can you say that Jesus is
not God's only begotten son when Jesus says it so clearly in black and
white in the Bible?" Well, first of all, as seen in the previous
section, we first need to know the language of his people, the language
of the Jews to whom he was speaking. Let us see how they understood this
proclamation. Let us begin by asking: How many sons does
the Bible tell us that God Almighty has?
As we can see, the use of the term
"son of God" when describing normal human beings was not at
all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people. Well then, was Jesus the only begotten
son of God? Read Psalms 2:7 "I will declare the decree: the
LORD hath said unto me (King David,
King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.". Indeed, the Jews are even referred to as
much more than this in the Bible, and this is indeed the very trait
which Jesus (pbuh) held against them. When the Jews picked up stones to
stone Jesus (pbuh) he defended himself with the following words "Jesus answered them, Is it not
written in your law, 'I said, Ye are gods?' If he called them gods, unto
whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..." John 10:34: (he was referring to Psalms 82:6 "I
have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most
High..") As we can see from these and many other verses like
them, "son of God" in the language of the Jews was a very
innocent term used to describe a loyal servant of God. Whether the
translators and editors chose to write it as "Son of God"
(with a capital S) in reference to Jesus and "son of God"
(with a small S) in reference to everyone else does not diminish the
fact that in the original language, both cases are exactly the same. Are
we beginning to see what drove the most learned men of the Anglican
Church to recognize the truth? But let us move on. Grolier's encyclopedia, under the heading
"Jesus Christ," says: "During his earthly life Jesus was
addressed as rabbi and was regarded as a prophet. Some of his words,
too, place him in the category of sage. A title of respect for a rabbi
would be "my Lord." Already before Easter his followers,
impressed by his authority, would mean something more than usual when
they addressed him as "my Lord.".... it is unlikely that the
title "Son of David" was ascribed to him or accepted by him
during his earthly ministry. "Son of God," in former times a
title of the Hebrew kings (Psalms 2:7), was first adopted in the
post-Easter church as an equivalent of Messiah and had no metaphysical
connotations (Romans 1:4). Jesus was conscious of a unique filial
relationship with God, but it is uncertain whether the Father/Son
language (Mark 18:32; Matt. 11:25-27 par.; John passim) goes back to
Jesus himself" . There seems to be only two places in the
Bible where Jesus (pbuh) refers to himself as "son of God."
They are in John chapters 5 and 11. Hastings in "The dictionary of
the Bible" says: "Whether Jesus used it of himself is
doubtful." Regardless, we have already seen what is meant by this
innocent title. However, Jesus is referred to as the "son of
Man" (literally: "Human being") 81 times in the books of
the Bible. In the Gospel of Barnabas, we are told that Jesus (pbuh) knew
that mankind would make him a god after his departure and severely
cautioned his followers from having anything to do with such people. Jesus was not the son of a human man
(according to both the Bible and the Qur'an). However, we find him
constantly saying "I am the son of man." Why?. It was because
in the language of the Jews, that is how you say "I am a human
being." What was he trying to tell us by constantly
repeating and emphasizing to us throughout the New Testament "I am
a human being," "I am a human being," "I am a human
being"?. What had he foreseen? Think about it!. Do Christians emphasize this aspect of
Jesus? The New Testament Greek word translated as "son" are
"pias" and "paida" which mean "servant,"
or "son in the sense of servant." These are translated to
"son" in reference to Jesus and "servant" in
reference to all others in some translations of the Bible (see below).
As we are beginning to see, one of the most fundamental reasons why
Jesus (pbuh) is considered God is due to extensive mistranslation. We
shall see more and more examples of this throughout this book. Islam teaches that Jesus (pbuh) was a human
being, not a god. Jesus (pbuh) continually emphasized this to his
followers throughout his mission. The Gospel of Barnabas also affirms
this fact. Once again, Grolier's encyclopedia says: "...Most problematical of all is
the title "Son of Man." This is the only title used repeatedly
by Jesus as a self-designation, and there is no clear evidence that it
was used as a title of majesty by the post-Easter church. Hence it is
held by many to be authentic, since it passes the criterion of
dissimilarity." 1.2.3.3
Because God was his "Father"? Is Jesus (pbuh) a divine son of God because
he called God "Father"? Well, how do all Christians refer to
Him? What does Jesus himself have to tell us in this regard? Let us read
"That ye may be the children of
your Father which is in heaven..." Matthew 5:45 and "Be ye therefore perfect, even
as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48: ...etc. There are countless verses in the Bible to
this effect. To understand what is meant by the reference to
"Father" we need only read John 8:42: "Jesus said unto them, If God were
your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God;
neither came I of myself, but he sent me." So the love of God and His prophets is what
makes God someone's "father." Similarly, "Ye are of your father the devil,
and the lusts of your father ye will do." John 8:44 Obviously neither the Devil nor God is the physical
father of any of them. The term "Father" in that day and age
was used by the Jews in the same sense that Christians use the word
"father" today to address a priest. It was not meant to be
taken literally. Otherwise, the Bible would bear witness that every
believer in Jesus (pbuh) is also the "physical" son of God. Further,
please note that Joseph is called a "father" to Pharaoh in
Genesis 45:8, and Job is called the "father" of the poor in
Job 29:16. Once we read all of this we begin to understand how the Jews
used to understand the reference to God Almighty as "Father." 1.2.3.4
Because he performed miracles? Well then, is Jesus the son of God because
he raised the dead? If so, then what about Ezekiel who is said to have
raised many more dead bodies than Jesus ever did. Ezekiel is said to
have raised a whole city from the dead (Ezekiel 37:1-9) If we are looking for Godly powers and
miracles as proof of godliness then what about Joshua who is said to
have stopped the sun and moon for one whole day: (Joshua 10:12-13). Can
anyone but God Almighty do this? Elisha is said to have raised the dead,
resurrected himself, healed a leper, fed a hundred people with twenty
barley loaves and a few ears of corn, and healed a blind man: (2 Kings
4:35, 13:21, 5:14, 4:44, and 6:11.) Elijah is said to have raised the dead, and
made a bowl of flour and a jar of oil inexhaustible for many days (1
Kings 17:22 and 14.) To say nothing of Moses (pbuh) and his
countless miracles. Of his parting of the sea, of his changing of a
stick into a serpent, of his changing of water into blood, ..etc. And so forth...... Even Jesus (pbuh) himself tells us that
miracles by themselves do not prove anything: "For there shall arise false
Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders;
insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very
elect" Matthew 24:24 So even false Christs can supply great
wonders and miracles of such magnitude that even the most knowledgeable
among men shall be deceived. Jesus (pbuh) had a beginning (the
begetting) and an end ("and he gave up the ghost")
Melchizedec, however, is said to have had no beginning of days nor end
of life but was "made like unto the Son of God" !. "For this Melchizedec, king of
Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the
slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a
tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness,
and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without
father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of
days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a
priest continually. Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom
even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils." Hebrews 7:1-4 Solomon is said to have been with God at
the beginning of time before all of creation, Proverbs 8:22-31. Well then, is Jesus (pbuh) god because he
performed his miracles under his own power while others needed God to
perform them for them? Let us then read:
So we see that even the apostle of Jesus (pbuh),
Peter "the Rock,"* bore witness many years after
the departure of Jesus not that Jesus was "God, the Son of God,
who did miracles through his Omnipotence," rather, he openly
bore witness before all those present that Jesus was "a
man." He then went on to make sure that the masses would
not be mislead by Jesus' miracles into thinking that he was more than a
man by emphasizing that it was not Jesus who did the miracles, rather,
just as was the case with countless other prophets before him, it was
God Himself who did these miracles and that God's prophets are simply
the tools through which He performed His miracles. In other words, the
point that Peter was trying to drive home to these people was for them
to remember that just as Moses' parting of the seas did not make him God
or the son of God, and just as Elisha's raising of the dead did not make
him God or the son of God, so too was the case with Jesus. What was the goal behind the performance of
these miracles? Let us read John 11:42 where we find that just before
Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, he made a point of making sure that
the crowd would not misunderstand what he was about to do or why he did
it, so he publicly stated before God while they were listening that,
just as was the case with all previous prophets, the reason why he was
given these miracles was in order to prove that God had sent Him and he
was a true prophet: "And I knew that Thou hearest me
always; but because of the people standing around I said it, that they
may believe that Thou didst send Me.".
John 11:42 1.2.3.5
Because he was filled with the Holy Ghost? Well then was Jesus (pbuh) the son of God
because he was filled with the Holy Ghost? Let us read
Is
Jesus(pbuh) a god because he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his
mother's womb? If this is the case then John the Baptist should be a god
also, as claimed in Luke 1:13-15. 1.2.3.6
Because he was the "Image of God"? Some will now say: But in the Bible we
read: "....Christ, who is the image of
God." 2 Corinthians 4:4 Surely this makes Jesus God. Well then, we
should also read "So God created man in his own
image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he
them." Genesis 1:27 1.2.3.7
Because he was "from above"? In John 8:23 we read "And he (Jesus) said unto them, Ye
are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of
this world." Does this make Jesus (pbuh) a god ? No! Why
not read "I have given them thy word; and
the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I
am not of the world" John 17:14 and "They are not of the world,
even as I am not of the world." John 17:16 There are many more similar examples. 1.2.3.8
Because he was the "Messiah/Christ" and the "Word"? Many people believe "Messiah" to
be a mystical Biblical term which had been reserved by God from the
beginning of time as a direct equivalent of "only begotten
Son." For this reason, when they see that Jesus is referred to in
the Bible as "The Messiah" they immediately translate this to
mean "The Son of God." In order to clear up this
misconception, let us first define the true meaning of the word Messiah
and then show it's exact usage in the Bible. The word "Messiah" is the English
version of the Hebrew word mashiyach {maw-shee'-akh}. The literal
meaning of this word in the Hebrew language is "to anoint." In
our present day, it is customary for those who are appointed to high
office (ie. the President of the US, Supreme Court justices, etc.) to
attend a solemn ritual wherein that person is consecrated into office.
During this ritual, certain rights of passage or ascension must be
performed, such as repeating a solemn oath and so forth. Once such
rituals have been successfully completed, only then is that person
considered to have officially received the rights and obligations of
this office. In a similar
fashion, in ancient times it was a common practice among the Jews to
"anoint" those who were appointed positions of high authority.
If we were to read the Bible we would find that every priest and king of
ancient Israel was "anointed" by their people as a sign of
official consecration to office. Further, we find that it was not at all
uncommon for inanimate objects and even pagans to be
"anointed." For example: Solomon: 1 Kings 1:39 "And Zadok the priest
took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And
they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king
Solomon." David: 1 Samuel 16:13 "Then Samuel took
the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the
Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose
up, and went to Ramah." Jewish priests: Leviticus 4:3 "If the priest that
is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him
bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish
unto the LORD for a sin offering." Cyrus the pagan: Isaiah 45:1 "Thus
saith the LORD to his Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden,
to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to
open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be
shut;" A pillar: Genesis 31:13 "I
[am] the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, [and] where
thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and
return unto the land of thy kindred." The tabernacle: Leviticus 8:10 "And Moses took the
anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that [was] therein,
and sanctified them." A cherub: Ezekiel 28:14 "Thou [art] the
anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon
the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of
the stones of fire." Sick people: Mark 6:13 "And
they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick,
and healed [them]." Jesus anoints a blind man John 9:6 "When he had thus spoken,
he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the
eyes of the blind man with the clay," When this word was translated into ancient
Greek, the words used were "Messias" {mes-see'-as} and "Christos"
{khris-tos'} (see John 1:41, 4:25). This is where we get the word
"Christ" from, it was originally derived from the Greek word
for "anoint." Jesus was indeed "christened," or
"anointed," or "baptized," by John the Baptist
before the beginning of his ministry as seen for example in Matthew 3:16
among many other verses. This is not to say that just because the
word "Messiah" was applied to others that it was not a
specific designation for Jesus. It only goes to show that this title
does not imply a position as "Son of God." For example, all of the prophets of God are
"friends of God," however, only prophet Abraham received this
title as an official designation for himself (James 2:23). In a similar
manner, all of the prophets of God in ancient Israel were all
"anointed" prophets, however, as an official designation, this
title was reserved exclusively for Jesus. This is indeed confirmed in
the noble Qur'an: "And the angles said 'O Mary, Allah
gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, his name is Messiah, Jesus
son of Mary, High honored in this world and the next, of those near
stationed to Allah." The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):40 In fact, prophet Abraham is also fondly
referred to by Muslims as the "Khaleel-ullah" ("Friend of
God"), and prophet Moses is referred to as "Kaleem-ullah"
("The one spoken to by God"). However, just because prophet
Abraham is the "friend of God," this does not imply that all
other prophets (Noah, Moses, etc.) are all "enemies of God." Similarly, just because Jesus (pbuh) is a
"word" from God and a "spirit" from Him does not
imply that that he is "part of" God, or that this designation
is exclusive to him. For example, in the Qur'an we read: "So when I (God) have fashioned him
(Adam) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall you (Angels, and those
in attendance) down in prostration before him." The noble Qur'an, Al-Hijr(15):29 "Verily! Our (Allah's) Word unto a
thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it "Be!" -
and it is" The noble Qur'an, Al-Nahil(16):40 (please
also read chapter 14) To make such terminology clearer, let us
take the example of the term "house of God," or "My
house" as seen in the Bible and the Qur'an in 1 Chronicles 9:11,
and Al-Bakarah(2):125. If God is not confined to a specific house or
location (both Muslims and Christians agree to this), then what is meant
by the words "house of God"? Every house on earth belongs to
God, however, we do not call bars or brothels "houses of God"
but we do call houses of worship "houses of God." The true
meaning is that God is showing favor upon this house by associating it
with His name. God bestows such titles upon those whom He wishes to
bestow His favor upon from among His creation by virtue of the piety and
worship which is displayed to God in association with this creation. It
was the selfless dedication and piety of Jesus (pbuh) towards his
Creator which was rewarded by God by associating Jesus' spirit with His
name. In a similar manner, the reference to Jesus
being a "word" from God does not mean that Jesus is "part
of" God. For example, in many places in the Bible God refers tp His
"word." We can see this for example: "Aaron shall be gathered unto his
people: for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the
children of Israel, because ye rebelled against my word at the water of
Meribah." Numbers 20:24 Does "my word" here mean
"Jesus"? There are numerous other examples. 1.2.3.9
Because he was called "Lord"? Was Jesus God
because people addressed him as "my lord." Not according to
the Bible. In the Bible we find that this was a common practice with
many others besides Jesus. For example: Prophet Abraham: "Therefore Sarah laughed within
herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord
(Abraham) being old also?" Genesis 18:12 Esau: "And he commanded them, saying,
Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I
have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now:"
Genesis 32:4 Joseph: "And we said unto my lord, We have
a father, an old man, and a child of his old age, a little one; and his
brother is dead, and he alone is left of his mother, and his father
loveth him." Genesis 44:20 David: "And fell at his feet, and said,
Upon me, my lord, [upon] me [let this] iniquity [be]: and let thine
handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience, and hear the words of
thine handmaid." 1 Samuel 25:24 ...etc. 1.2.3.10
Because God "gave His only begotten Son.."? "For God so loved the world, that
he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life."
John 3:16 The above is the King James
"translation" of John 3:16. If we were to open up the Revised
Standard Version of the Bible on this exact same verse we would find it
now translated as "For God so loved the world, that
he gave his only son, ...." What is going on here? The RSV is the work
of thirty two Biblical Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed
by fifty cooperating Christian denominations. They produced the RSV in
an effort to correct the "many" and "serious" errors
they had found in the King James Bible. So why have they scrapped the
word "begotten" from this cornerstone of Christian preaching?
The reason is because they have decided to be honest with us when
translating this verse. The Greek term for "begotten" in
ancient Greek is "gennao" {ghen-nah'-o} as found for example
in Matthew 1:2. In the verses under consideration, however, the word
used was not "gennao" but "monogenes" {mon-og-en-ace'}. "Monogenes" is a Greek word which
conveys the meaning "unique" and not "begotten."
Thus, the true translation of this verse is "His unique
son." Some of the more honest translations of the
Bibles, such as the New Testament by Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith
(published in 1923) have indeed given the same translation as that of
the RSV. However, such "tell it as it is" Bibles were not
generally met with a lot of enthusiasm since they forced the reader to
face the fact that much of what the translators of the KJV have
"translated" for them was not in fact part of the Bible. We have already seen in previous sections
that the Bible bears witness that God has "sons" by the tons.
So what does the Bible mean by "only son" or "unique
son" when referring to Jesus? It means what the Bible has told us
and the Qur'an has confirmed for us, namely, that Jesus was
"unique" in that he was born of a human mother without a
father. God merely said to him "Be!" and he was. 1.2.3.11
What about "Unto us a child is born"? "For unto us a child is born, unto
us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and
his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The
everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6 When someone reads this verse of Isaiah
they immediately see a clear prophesy of God coming to earth in the form
on a human child. Is this not what the verse says? Does it not say that
Jesus shall be the "incarnation" of God on earth? Actually, it
does not. Let us study it together. Firstly, it is important when applying a
prophesy to someone to not selectively pick and choose catch phrases
from the prophesy and disregard the rest. In this prophesy we find that
the very first stipulation presented for this person is that he shall
carry the government upon his shoulders.* However, as is
popular knowledge, Jesus (pbuh) never in his whole lifetime ever formed
a government nor became a head of state. In fact we find him saying in
the Bible quite explicitly:
So according to the Bible, Jesus never
tried to establish a government nor to challenge the authority of the
pagan emperor Caesar over himself and his followers. Now, if someone
were to go the extra mile and to make the case that Jesus commands a
"spiritual" government in the hereafter, then we need to know
whether the hereafter shall be a place of governments, kings, laws and
regulations? Secondly, when we study the words
"mighty God" carefully, we notice an interesting fact. For
some reason, the words used are not "Almighty God" but rather
"mighty God." Naturally, this makes one curious as to what the
original Hebrew text actually says. So we decide to study it. The word for "Almighty" as
applied exclusively to God in the OT is the Hebrew word "Shadday"
{shad-dah'-ee}. However, this is not the word used in this verse. The
actual word used in this verse is the Hebrew word "Gibbowr"
meaning "mighty" and not "The Almighty." Now,
although to us such a difference might seem subtle and insignificant,
still, to the Jews, the difference was quite pronounced. Let me
elaborate. In the famous Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary
by James Strong the word "gibbowr" or short "gibbowr"
{ghib-bore'}, is translated as; warrior, tyrant:-champion, chief, excel,
giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man. On the other
hand the word "Shadday" {shad-dah'-ee}, is translated as, the
Almighty:-Almighty. The word translated as "God" here
is the Hebrew word "El" {ale} which in addition to it's use to
refer to God Almighty in the Bible is also used to refer to mighty men,
to demons, to angels, and to idols. As we have already seen in the
previous section, it was a common practice in the Bible to use the word
"god" to convey an air of authority or power. Some of the
examples presented were: "I have said, Ye (the Jews) are
gods; and all of you are children of the most High"
Psalms 82:6 and "And the LORD said unto Moses,
See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh"
Exodus 7:1 as well as "the god of this world
(the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."
2 Corinthians 4:4 When reading such verses we begin to
understand the reason why Isaiah 9:6 refers to a "mighty god"
and not an "Almighty God." If the author did indeed mean to
convey that this person would be the "incarnation" of God
Almighty who would come down to earth in the form of a human being in
order to walk among us and die on the cross, then why did this author
chose to "water down" his statement by only referring to him
with the generic term used for humans, demons, idols, and angels, and
not the specific term reserved for God Almighty alone? And finally, we study the term
"everlasting father." In the Bible, the term
"everlasting" or "forever" is often used as a
figurative term and does not necessarily convey its literal sense, for
example,
..etc. The same goes for the use of the term
"father". It does not necessarily mean; "the Heavenly
Father" (God), or the biological father. Let us read for example:
..etc. So, just as king David shall be an
"everlasting prince" so too shall this person be called an
"everlasting father." This is the language of the Jews. This
is how it was meant to be understood. We can not simply interpret a
verses in a vacuum of the culture, customs, and verbal constructs of the
people who wrote them. We must always be careful when
"translating" such verses to make sure that we translate them
as they were intended by the author and as his people had come to
understand them. I am sure that the people of this age would
be quite upset if one of them were to write to their closest friend "you
are an angel and a prince" and then centuries later a Japanese
speaking person were to say: "See? The author has just born
witness that his friend is a divine creature with wings that came down
to earth and became royalty. He says so very clearly right here!" Well is all of this only my own personal
attempt to pervert the verses and manipulate their meanings? Far from
it. Many Christian scholars have known and recognized the true meaning
of this verse and translated it into English accordingly, however, their
translations were not met with a whole lot of enthusiasm and thus, they
did not receive the same degree of publicity as has such translations as
the King James Version. For example, Mr. J. M. Powis Smith in "The
Complete Bible, an American Translation," quotes this same verse as
follows: "For a child is born to us, a son
is given to us; And the government will be upon his shoulder; And his
name will be called 'Wonderful counselor is God Almighty, Father
forever, Prince of peace'" "The Complete Bible, an American
Translation," Isaiah 9:6 And again, if we were to read the
translation of another Christian, for example Dr. James Moffatt, we
would find that in his translation "The Holy Bible Containing the
Old and New Testaments" the verse reads: "For a child has been born to us, a
child has been given to us; the royal dignity he wears, and this the
title he bears - 'A wonder of a counselor, a divine hero, a father for
all time, a peaceful prince'" "The Holy Bible Containing the Old and
New Testaments" Isaiah 9:6 1.2.3.12
How did Jesus' people know him? So if the followers of Jesus (pbuh)
considered God to be their "Father," then how did they regard
Jesus? To answer this let us read together: "And when he would have put him to
death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet."
Matthew 14:5 (compare with Matthew 21:26) "And the multitude said, This is
Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." Matthew 21:11 "But when they sought to lay hands
on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet."
Matthew 21:46 "And he said unto them, What
things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was
a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the
people:" Luke 24:19 "The woman saith unto him, Sir, I
perceive that thou art a prophet."
John 4:19 "Then those men, when they had seen
the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet
that should come into the world."
John 6:14 "Many of the people therefore, when
they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet."
John 7:40 Indeed, how did Jesus himself
describe himself? Let us read: "Nevertheless I (Jesus) must walk
to day, and to morrow, and the [day] following: for it cannot be that a prophet
perish out of Jerusalem." Luke 13:33 And they were offended in him. But Jesus
said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own
country, and in his own house. Matthew 13:57 This is once again confirmed in the noble
Qur'an: "And when Jesus son of Mary said: O
Children of Israel! Verily! I am the messenger of Allah unto you,
confirming that which was [revealed] before me in the Torah" The noble Qur'an, Al-Saf(61):6 1.2.3.13
Is God a man? In
the Bible we read "God is not a man, that he should lie;
neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and
shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it
good?", Numbers 23:19 1.2.3.14
Does God pray to Himself? Now, does God pray? Let us read the Bible:
All of these verses do not speak of Jesus (pbuh)
"meditating," "interceding," "consorting,"
or "consulting," but PRAYING. But to whom? To Himself?
To another side of his own personality? Is Jesus not "the same
essence" as God, and all are one Trinity? If Jesus and God are not
"the same essence" then this means that there is more than one
God in existence, and thus, we have just directly opposed verse, after
verse, after explicit verse of the Bible, all of which emphasize that
there ever was, and ever shall be, only one God. Further, Jesus (pbuh) and his disciples are
continuously being described in the Bible as "falling on their
faces and praying" which is exactly the way Muslims pray today (see
section 5.6). They pray the way Jesus (pbuh) did. Have you ever seen a
Christian "fall on his face" and pray to God as Jesus (pbuh),
Muhammad (pbuh), and all Muslims do? Mr. Tom Harpur says: "In fact, unless we are prepared to
believe that his prayer-dependence on God was nothing more than a sham
for our edification, a mere act to set us a good example, it is
impossible to cling to the orthodox teaching that Jesus was really God
Himself walking about in human form, the Second Person of the Trinity.
The concept of God praying - let alone praying to Himself - is
incomprehensible to me. To say that it was simply the human side of
Jesus talking to God the Father (rather than his own divine nature as
Son of God) is to posit a kind of schizophrenia that is incompatible
with any belief in Jesus' full humanity" For Christ's Sake, pp. 42-43. Think about it, when we are told that Jesus
was in the garden earnestly begging and pleading with God to please,
please save him saying "let this cup pass from me" and
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" etc., then:
God has given us the answer in the Qur'an
over 1400 years ago. He says: "And from those who said: "We
are Christians," We took their covenant, but they forgot a good
part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up
enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah
will inform them of what they used to do. O people of the Scripture! Now
has Our messenger (Muhammad) come to you, explaining to you much of that
which you used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Indeed,
there has come to you a light from Allah and a plain Scripture.
Wherewith Allah guides him who seeks His good pleasure unto paths of
peace. He brings them out of darkness by His will into light, and guides
them to a straight path. They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah
is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say : Who then has the least power against
Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his
mother and everyone on earth? And to Allah belongs the dominion of the
heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He creates what He
will. And Allah is Able to do all things. The Jews and Christians say:
We are sons of Allah and His loved ones. Say; Why then does He punish
you for your sins? No, you are but mortals of His creating. He forgives
whom He will, and punishes whom He will. And to Allah belongs the
dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and
unto Him is the return (of all). O people of the Scripture! Now has Our
messenger (Muhammad) come unto you to make things plain after a break in
(the series of) the messengers, lest you should say: There came not unto
us a messenger of cheer nor any Warner. Now has a messenger of cheer and
a Warner come unto you. And Allah is Able to do all things." The noble
Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):14-19 1.2.3.15
Jesus is God's servant All of mankind are the servants of God. If
a man were to own another man then that man would be his servant.
Obviously this servant would be held in a lower regard than this man's
own children (or himself). We do not usually find people telling their
sons (or themselves): "come here my servant," or "Go
over there my servant." Let us compare this with what God has
to say about Jesus (pbuh):
The Actual
Greek word used is "pias" or "paida" which mean;
"servant, child, son, manservant." Some translations of the
Bible, such as the popular King James Version, have translated this word
as "Son" when it is attributed to Jesus (pbuh) and
"servant" for most everyone else, while more recent
translations of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) now
honestly translate it as "servant." As we shall see in later
chapters, the RSV was compiled by thirty two Biblical scholars of the
highest eminence, backed by 50 cooperating Christian denominations from
the "most" ancient Biblical manuscripts available to
them today. Chances are that no matter what your church or denomination
you are able to name, that church took part in the correction of the
King James Version of the Bible which resulted in the RSV. The exact same word "pias"
is attributed to Jacob(Israel) in Luke 1:54 and translated as
"servant": "He hath helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy;." It is also applied to King David in Luke
1:69, and once again, it is translated as "servant": "....the house of his servant
David;" (also see Acts 4:25). However, when it is applied to Jesus (e.g.
Acts 3:13, Acts 4:27), NOW it is translated as "Son."
(notice that it is not only translated as "son" but as
"Son".) Why the double standard? Why the dishonest translation
techniques? "And verily, among them is a party
who twist their tongues with the Scripture that you might think that it
is from the Scripture but it is not from the Scripture; and they say,
'It is from Allah' but it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie
against Allah while [well] they know it!" The noble
Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):78 "The Messiah will never scorn to be
a servant of Allah, nor will the favored angels. Whosoever scorns His
service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him; Then as for
those who believed and did good works, unto them will he pay their wages
in full and shall increase them from His bounty. [But] as for those who
were scornful and proud, He shall punish hem with a painful torment, nor
will they find for themselves other than Allah any ally or
champion" The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):172-174 1.2.3.16
Does God have a God? In John 20:17 we read: "Jesus saith unto her, ...I ascend
unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your." Not only is God Jesus' father, but He is
also his GOD. Think about this carefully. Also notice how Jesus
is equating between himself and mankind in these matters and not between
himself and God. He is making it as clear as he possibly can that he is
one of US and not a god. Why did he not just say "I
ascend unto my Father, and your Father ." ... and stop !? Why
did Jesus feel it necessary to add the words "...and to my God,
and your God." What additional information was he trying to
convey to us with these extra words? Think about it carefully. 1.2.3.17
Is God greater than Himself? Okay, If Jesus and God are two distinct
gods and one is greater than the other ("my Father is greater
than I" John 14:28) then this contradicts such verses as Isaiah
43:10-11 and the very definition of the "Trinity" (see section
2.2.5) which includes the words: "..Co-equality.." in it's
definition (see section 2.2.8). However,
if they are not two separate gods, but ONE god, as claimed by all
Trinitarians (like Mr. J), then is Jesus (pbuh) praying to himself? Is,
for instance, his mind praying to his soul? Why? 1.2.3.18
More to think about Matthew 11:11 "Verily I (Jesus) say
unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a
greater than John the Baptist." Not even Jesus? Jesus (pbuh)
was born of a woman. Job
25:4: "How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be
clean that is born of a woman?" Once again, Jesus (pbuh) was
born of a woman. Shall we now apply this to him? Not as far as Muslims
are concerned. 1.2.3.19
Was God ignorant and savage? The Bible describes Jesus (pbuh) as
follows: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and
stature." Luke 2:52 and "Though he were a Son, yet
learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." Hebrews 5:8 If Jesus is God and they are not two
separate gods, then did God start out as an ignorant and savage god and
then become a learned (wisdom) and prestigious (stature) god? Does God
have to learn? Does God start out savage and increase in
stature? Does God need to learn obedience to God? If there is only one
God in existence, and this god is a "Trinity" with three
faces: God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost (required by Isaiah 43:10-11 and
countless other verses), then is Jesus (pbuh) learning obedience to
another side of his own personality? If as we are constantly told, God Jesus and
the Holy Ghost are ONE God, and if God surrendered some of His godly
attributes and became man, then did He also surrender His knowledge and
become ignorant, and His stature and become savage? Did He have to
rebuild His knowledge and His stature from scratch? Mr. Tom Harpur says: "In fact, if you read Mark's whole
Gospel carefully you will discover that the disciples were far from
recognizing the divinity later attributed to Jesus. The very ones who should
have been most able to see through the 'disguise' are at times depicted
as dull-witted and even downright stupid....Some scholars, indeed, have
calculated that Mark deliberately showed the disciples in a rather bad
light because he was conscious of a serious problem. If Jesus was the
Son of God in the later; more orthodox sense, how was it that his
closest associates - the witnesses of his miracles and the confidants of
his deepest teachings - never knew who he was until well after the
resurrection?" For Christ's Sake, pp. 59. Remember, most Christian scholars today
recognize that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used the
"Gospel of Mark" as the source document from which they
obtained their material. In Grolier's encyclopedia, under the
heading "Mark, Gospel According to", we read: "Mark is the second Gospel in the
New Testament of the Bible. It is the earliest and the shortest of the
four Gospels. ...Much material in Mark is repeated in Matthew and in
Luke, leading most scholars to conclude that Mark was written first and
used independently by the other writers" Well, what then is the Islamic perspective
on all of this? Islam teaches that God does not need to lower Himself in
order to display His love and mercy for humanity, rather, He retains His
glory, majesty and sovereignty and then raises humanity: "Allah will exalt those who have
believed from among you, and those who have been granted knowledge, to
high ranks. And Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do." The noble Qur'an, Al-Mujadila(58):11 "Whosoever desires honor, power and
glory, then [let them know that] to Allah belongs all honor, power and
glory. To Him ascends the good word, and the righteous deed does raise
it; but those who plot iniquities, theirs will be an awful doom; and the
plotting of such (folk) will come to naught." The noble Qur'an, Fatir(35):10 1.2.3.20
But he must be God, or else we can not be saved But the Church will tell us that it is
necessary for Jesus (pbuh) to be the son of God and to die on the cross
as an ultimate sacrifice in atonement for the original sin, otherwise
they are all destined for hell. As Paul taught them "without
shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22. Let us study
Paul's claim: If the sin of one man can make all mankind
sinners as claimed in Romans 5:12, then: 1) This requires that all babies are
sinners from birth and are only saved if they later "accept the
sacrifice of their Lord and are baptized." All others remain
stained with the original sin and destined for destruction. Till
recently, unbaptized infants were not buried in consecrated ground
because they were believed to have died in original sin. Saint Augustine
himself is quoted as saying: "No one is clean, not even if his
life be only for a day" A dictionary of Biblical tradition in
English literature, p.577). This, however, contradicts the words of
Jesus himself "But Jesus said, Suffer little
children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the
kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:14 (also Mark 10:14, and Luke
18:16). So Jesus (pbuh) himself is telling us that
children are born without sin and are destined for heaven without
qualification. In other words, no one is born stained with an original
sin. Once again, the teachings of Islam. Islam teaches that you are
destined for salvation from your very birth. This will be your reward
unless you refuse this gift and insist on disobeying God. 2) All the many millennia of previous
prophets (Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Noah, ...etc.) and their people are all
condemned to never receive true salvation simply because Jesus, the
alleged "Son of God," arrived to late to save them. In other
words, they have sin forced upon them (by Adam, 1 Corinthians 15:22) and
the chance for redemption withheld from them (By Jesus' late arrival
after their death, Galatians 2:16). Paul says "Nevertheless death reigned from
Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude
of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to
come." Romans 5:14 "For if Abraham were justified by
works, he hath reason to boast; but not before God." Romans 4:2 If Jesus had only arrived as soon as Adam
committed his sin and not thousands of generations later then maybe all
of these generations could have received true salvation (like this
generation). Did Abraham or any of the other prophets
ever preach the "crucifixion"? Did they preach the
"Trinity"? I am asking for clear and decisive words and not
personal forced interpretations of their words or "hidden
meanings" for their words. If you are not sure then why not ask the
Jews who we are told faultlessly transmitted two thirds of the Bible to
us? Have any of them ever worshipped a Trinity? Many people do
not bother to think about this. As long as they are going to heaven,
what does it matter what happens to others? 3) What right did the prophets of God have
to deceive their people and tell them that they would receive eternal
salvation and expiation from their sins if they but kept the
commandments? What right did they have to teach them all of these
commandments and the observance of the Sabbath and other hardships if
all of their works were worthless and belief in Jesus' sacrifice which
would not occur till many thousands of years after their death was the
only way to salvation, or as Paul put it : "a man is not justified by the
works of the law ... for by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified.." Galatians 2:16. 4) Explain Ezekiel 18:19-20 "Yet do
you say: Why shouldn't the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the
son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my
statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that
sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the
father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the
righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of
the wicked shall be upon him.." This verse was revealed long
before the birth of Paul and his claims of "original sin" and
"redemption." It clearly states that all mankind
are not held accountable by God Almighty for the sin of
Adam. "The fathers shall not be put to
death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for
the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.."
Deuteronomy 24:16 "In those days they shall say no
more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are
set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man
that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."
Jeremiah 31:29-30 "The word of the LORD came unto me
again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the
land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the
children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye
shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold,
all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the
son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just,
and do that which is lawful and right, And hath not eaten upon the
mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of
Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, neither hath come near
to a menstruous woman, And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to
the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his
bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; He that
hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that
hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment
between man and man, Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my
judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the
Lord God" Ezekiel 18:1-9 "Who is a God like unto thee, that
pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of
his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth
in mercy." Micah 7:18: "So ye shall not pollute the land
wherein ye [are]: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be
cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that
shed it." Numbers 35:33 5) Isaiah 43:11 "I, even I, am the
LORD; and beside me there is no savior." How is Jesus the
savior if God Himself denies this? Remember, we have already
discarded the doctrine of "Trinity." "I am God, and there is none else;
I am God, and there is none like me,"
Isaiah 46:9 "the LORD he is God; there is none
else beside him," Deuteronomy 4:35 "See now that I, even I, am he, and
there is no god with me," Deuteronomy 32:39 "That all the people of the earth
may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else," 1 Kings 8:60 "Is there a God beside me? yea,
there is no God; I know not any,"
Isaiah 44:8 "I am the LORD, and there is none
else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not
known me," Isaiah 45:5 "and there is no God else beside
me; a just God and a Savior there is none beside me," Isaiah 45:21 "I am God, and there is none
else." Isaiah 45:22: 6) "Jesus answered and said unto
him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will
love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
John 14:23. "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide
in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in
his love." John 15:10. So what were Jesus' words to us?: "And, behold, one came and said
unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have
eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is
none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep
the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt
do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou
shalt not bear false witness. Honor thy father and [thy] mother: and,
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself The young man saith unto him,
All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus
said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou
hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and
come [and] follow me." Matthew 19:16-21. Jesus (pbuh) refutes that he is even
"good." This is a characteristic of a MAN. When you
compliment a man, and this man is humble, he will say: "why are
you complimenting me? I am not so good, I am just a humble man."
This is how good and decent men speak. It is how they display humility
before God. However, if Jesus (pbuh) is God then he must claim to
be good. This is because God is the source of ultimate good. If
God claims not to be good then he will be a hypocrite and a liar which
is impossible. Jesus then goes on to completely bypass any
mention of an original sin or an atonement. He does not
tell this man that "a man is not justified by the works of the
law ... for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.."
Rather, he tells him that the keeping of the commandments and the
selling of one's belongings is the path to perfection. No
mention of an original sin. No mention of an atonement. No mention of a
crucifixion. No mention of faith without work. As we have seen in
sections 1.2.5 through 1.2.7 (and we shall see much more of this in
later sections), all of these beliefs were the beliefs of Paul
and not Jesus. Paul, a disciple of Jesus' disciple
Barnabas, is quoted to have said that the law of Moses is worthless.
Belief in the crucifixion is the only requirement "Knowing that a man is not
justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,
even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the
faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of
the law shall no flesh be justified" Galatians 2:16 Also: "Therefore we conclude that a
man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28 And: "In that he saith, A new
covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth
old is ready to vanish away" Hebrews 8:13. And: "He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned." Mark 16:16 Please compare the above with "The law of the LORD [is] perfect,
converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise
the simple." Psalm 19:7 Jesus (pbuh), however, tells us that "For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled,
Fulfillment of Law of Moses. Whosoever therefore shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be
called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do
and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven." Matthew 5:18-19. Even James emphasizes that: "What [doth it] profit, my
brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith
save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and
filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful
to the body; what [doth it] profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works,
is dead, being alone Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have
works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my
faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest
well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain
man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father
justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made
perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed
God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called
the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and
not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by
works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out
another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith
without works is dead also." James 2:14-20 It comes down to this: Who's words carry
more weight with us, Jesus or Paul? Jesus and James both say "have
faith in God and obey the commandments and you shall be saved."
Paul on the other hand says "Forget the commandments, just have
faith in the death of Jesus!" So who do we trust, Jesus or Paul? When God Almighty sent down the Noble
Qur'an in order to "bear witness" over the previous
scriptures and to "rectify" the changes which have
crept into them over the ages, He also provided us with the path to
salvation. Strangely enough, in the Qur'an we find a confirmation of the
message of both Jesus and James: "And whosoever does of the
righteous good deeds, be they male or female, and has faith, such will
enter Paradise and shall not be wronged even so much as a 'Naqeer'(the
speck on the back of a date stone)" The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):124 "And whosoever works deed of
righteousness and has faith, then he shall fear no injustice nor any
curtailment [of his reward]." The noble Qur'an, Ta'ha(20):112 "Verily, those who believed and did
righteous deeds, they are the best of creatures" The noble Qur'an, Al-Bayyinah(98):7 "[God swears] by all time!. Verily,
humanity is in loss. Except such as had faith, and did righteous deeds,
and encouraged one-another in truth, and encouraged one-another in
patience." The noble Qur'an, Al-Asr(103):1-3 Jesus (pbuh) himself never said
"Believe in my sacrifice on the cross and you will be saved."
He didn't tell this young man "You are filthy wicked and sinful and
can never enter heaven except through my redeeming blood and your belief
in my sacrifice." He simply said repeatedly "keep the
commandments" and nothing more. If Jesus (pbuh) was being prepared
and conditioned for this sacrifice from the beginning of time, then why
did he not mention it to this man? Even when this man pressed him for
more, Jesus only told him that to be "PERFECT" he only
needs to sell his belongings. He made no mention whatsoever of his
crucifixion, an original sin, or a redemption. Would this not be quite
sadistic of Jesus (pbuh) if Paul's claims are true "for by the
works of the law shall no flesh be justified"? We do not
know when or how this young man later died. However, supposing he died
the very next day, right after receiving this command directly from the
mouth of Jesus, would he then be destined for Hell since he never
believed in a Trinity, an original sin, a crucifixion or an atonement
even though he was following the command of Jesus to the letter? If Jesus' (pbuh) whole mission in life was
to die on the cross in atonement for the "sin of Adam," and if
this was the founding reason why he was sent, would we not be justified
in expecting him to spend night and day drumming this into the minds of
his followers? Should we not expect him to speak of nothing else? Should
we not expect him to spend night and day preaching that the commandments
shall soon be thrown out the window (Galatians 3:13) and faith in his
upcoming crucifixion shall be the only thing required of them? (Romans
3:28). Should we not expect Jesus (pbuh) to echo the teachings of Paul
who never in his life met Jesus but claims Jesus (pbuh) was preaching
these things to him in "visions"? Should we not expect Jesus (pbuh)
to tell everyone he meets "The commandments are worthless. I shall
be dying on the cross soon. Believe in my sacrifice and you shall be
saved"? Is this not dictated by plain simple logic? Can we find
such an explicit statement from Jesus anywhere
in the whole Bible? 7) We read in the Bible that Jesus (pbuh)
taught his followers to pray to God as follows: "..And forgive us our debts, as we
forgive our debtors." Matthew 6:12. Also: "And forgive us our sins; for
we also forgive every one that is indebted to us." Luke 11:4. Jesus is asking us to pray to God that He
forgive our sins. But how does he want God to forgive our
sins? By a blood sacrifices of a sinless god? No!. That is not what he
said. Rather, he taught us to ask God to forgive us "as we forgive
those who are indebted to us." Therefore one must ask, if someone
owes us money and we want to forgive them, what do we do?:
Therefore, did Jesus teach us to pray to
God that He should:
In the Qur'an we are told that Adam (pbuh)
did indeed repent "And Adam received from his Lord
words (teaching him how to repent) and He relented toward him. Lo! He is
the Relenting the Merciful" The noble Qur'an, Al-Bakarah(2):37 So Adam (pbuh) received a revelation from
God showing him how to repent and he did so. God Almighty did not
mandate a gruesome and torturous death for "His only begotten
son" or anything else. He simply accepted Adam's repentance and
relented. This is true mercy. Tom Harpur, a former professor of New
Testament, author of "For Christ's Sake," and an Anglican
Minister writes; "Perhaps I am lacking in piety or
some basic instinct, but I know I am not alone in finding the idea of
Jesus' death as atonement for the sins of all humanity on one level
bewildering and on the other morally repugnant. Jesus never to my
knowledge said anything to indicate that forgiveness from God could only
be granted 'after' or 'because of' the Cross." For Christ's Sake, p.75 1.2.3.21
But he must be God, he was lifted up A Christian gentleman from Canada once
quoted John 3:14-15 in an attempt to prove that Jesus (pbuh) died and
was resurrected. The actual words are: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent
in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal
life.." If we are to conclude that the act of God
raising someone up is a sign that that person is a god or God Himself
then we need to wonder how we shall then interpret the fact that God
also raised Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) and Enoch (Genesis 5:24) neither of
which, according to the Bible and the consensus of the Christian
scholars, died natural deaths but were instead "raised up" or
"taken" by God because of their piety, uprightness, and their
"walking with God." Further, anyone who would simply read the
above verses carefully will notice that they never mention either a
"crucifixion" or a "resurrection." They also do not
mention an "original sin" or an "atonement." They do
not even mention a "Son of God." So, what do they say? They
say exactly what Muslims say: That Jesus (pbuh) was not forsaken by God
to the Jews, but was raised by God! "And because of their saying (in
boast): We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of
Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but a similitude of
that was shown to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts.
They have no (certain) knowledge, except the following of conjecture.
For surely; they killed him not. But Allah raised him up unto Himself,
and Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):157-158. This is what the "Gospel of
Barnabas" says too. If you were to read the Gospel of Barnabas (see
chapter 7), you would find that when Jesus (pbuh) was allegedly
crucified, all of the faithful were weeping in the streets and they
began to have serious doubts about his truthfulness and his true
prophethood. They said "Jesus told us that he would not die
until just before the end of time. Now he has been crucified by his
enemies. Was he a liar?" (by the way, Muslims also believe that
Jesus, pbuh, will return to earth just before the end of time and will
guide mankind to the final message of God. The message of Islam). The
same Gospel then goes on to describe how Jesus (pbuh) returned a few
days later with four angels to the house of his mother Mary (pbuh) and
was seen by the apostles. He described how God had saved him from the
hands of the Jews, and had made it so that Judas resembled him and was
taken in his place. He told them that those who believe in him must
believe that everything he had preached to them was true. If they
believed that he was raised by God and not forsaken to the Jews to be
crucified, then they would have eternal life. Is this not what the
verses say? Please read sections 5.10, 5.16 and chapter 7. 1.2.4:
"Worship me!" "And
why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"
Luke 6:46 Mr.
J says: "What makes Jesus stand out from all other religious
figures is the nature of His claims about Himself. He claims the
prerogatives of God, the rightful object of a person's supreme
allegiance, and receives with out censure the worship and obedience of
those who believe." Let us study the validity of this claim: 1.2.4.1
Who can forgive sins? Islam teaches that a Muslim is rewarded for
every single hardship he endures patiently during his lifetime and that
each hardship endured patiently is used by God Almighty to erase a
previous sin by this individual. Even something so simple as a pin prick
is counted to this end. How much greater the reward for a man who
endured paralysis. His reward may very likely be the forgiveness of all
of his sins. If Christianity believes that forgiving sins is a sign of
divinity then what are we to say about the many millions of people in
the Christian clergy who over the last 2000 years have publicly accepted
people's "confessions" and "forgiven" their sins?
Are they all the offspring of God and part of the Trinity? Do they call
God on the telephone and ask His permission to forgive each individual
or do they have "the power to forgive sins"? In "The Five Gospels," written by
24 Christian scholars from some of the most prominent US and Canadian
Universities around today, we read on page 44: "Stories of Jesus curing a
paralytic are found in all four narrative gospels, The Johannine version
(John 5:1-9) differs substantially...The controversy interrupts the
story of the cure- which reads smoothly if one omits vv. 5b-10 (Mark 2)-
and it is absent in the parallel of John...Scholars usually conclude, on
the basis of this evidence, that Mark has inserted the dispute into what
was originally a simple healing story...If the words are to be
attributed to Jesus, v. 10 may represent a bold new claim on Jesus' part
that gives the authority to forgive sins to all human beings...The early
church was in the process of claiming for itself the right to forgive
sins and so would have been inclined to claim that it's authorization
came directly from Jesus." However, even if we were for a moment to
disregard all of the evidence, then we will find that to insist on
following Mark 2:1-12 blindly shall result in utter and complete
nullification of one of the founding beliefs of Christianity. For the
proof of this, please read section 5.16. We have already spoken in section 1.2.3.2
about the term "Son of God" and it's true meaning as
understood by the people of that time. What we want is a claim by Jesus
himself where he says "Worship me" just as God Almighty says
for instance in Isaiah 66:23 "And it shall come to pass, that
from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all
flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD." I simply want to know where Jesus (pbuh)
does the same. 1.2.4.2
Jesus said "I am" so he must be God Once again, the claim in John 8:56-59 "before
Abraham was born, I am" is not the same as "worship
me!" The fact that Jesus (pbuh) was present before Abraham (pbuh)
is not the same as him saying "worship me!" What then would we
say about Solomon (pbuh) (Proverbs 8:22-31) and Melchizedec (Hebrews
7:3), who were supposedly present not only before Abraham (pbuh), but
also before all of creation? What about the many others who were either
anointed, consecrated or made holy, before their births. (see Ps.89:20,
Is. 45:1, 61:1, 1 Sam. 24:6, and Jer.1:5)? With regard to your comparison of "I
am" in the verse of Exodus 3:14 with that of John 8:59, please
note that in John 9:9, a beggar who was healed by prophet Jesus used these
exact same words used by Jesus ("I am") to refer to himself.
We read "Some said, This is he (the
beggar): others [said], He is like him: [but] he said, I am [he]."
John 9:9. Here we have a very clear statement from
the beggar that he was "implying" that he too was God
Almighty. Is this not how the "translators" have chosen to
translate and "interpret" such verses?. Please note that the
word "he" was not uttered by this beggar. What he actually
said was "I am." He used the exact same words
that Jesus used. Word for word. Does this now make this beggar
too the "incarnation" of God? Also notice that when the Jews
asked this beggar about the identity of the one who healed him (Jesus)
he replied "And he said, 'He is a
prophet.'" John 9:17 Further, please notice how the
"translators" chose to add the word "he" after the
beggar's statement, but they did not chose to do so when Jesus said the
exact same words. Do you see how we have once again been
reduced to implication?. Notice how since Jesus never once says "I
am God!" or "Worship me!" that our own desire for him to
actually say that he is God is making us "interpret" every
innocent statement he makes to be equivalent to "I am God!"? Just because the English translation of
these verses is performed such that they become the same English words
does not mean that the original words are the same. The first is
the GREEK word eimi {i-mee'}, while the second is the HEBREW word hayah
{haw-yaw}. While both can be translated into English to mean the same
thing, they are in actuality two distinctly different words. The exact same Greek word
(eimi {i-mee'}) is translated as "I" in Matthew 26:22: "And they [the disciples] were
exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord,
is it I?" However, if we want to translate this word
as "I am" when Jesus says it then we need to be honest and
consistent and translate it the exact same way when the
disciples say it too. In such a case, Matthew 26:22 would be translated
as follows: "And they [the disciples] were
exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord,
is it I am?" So, if we were to follow these translator's
chosen "translation" techniques, shall we now claim that the
disciples of Jesus too are God? Here we have them saying so very
clearly. We have them asking Jesus in black and white "Are we
God?." Is this not what they were "implying?." Should the
inspiration of God be reduced to our "implications"? When the translators have not allowed their
preconceived doctrines to color their translation the result has been
such faithful translations of John 8:58 as the following: "'Truly, truly I tell you,' said
Jesus, 'I have existed before Abraham was born'" The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New
Testaments, Dr. James Moffatt, John 8:58 and "Jesus said to them, 'I tell
you, I existed before Abraham was born'" The Complete Bible, an American
Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, John 8:58 In Exodus 3:4, we read that prophet Moses
used this exact same term to refer to himself, however,
now strangely enough, no one has ever tried to claim that Moses is God
or that he was mimicking the words of God found ten verses later in the
same book of Exodus. We read: "And when the LORD saw that he
turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush,
and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here I am." Exodus 3:4 Notice how people are driven in a chosen
direction of faith through selective translation? Also remember that
Jesus (pbuh) did not speak GREEK. If only the church had not felt it
necessary to burn all of the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. Is it so hard to bring us one clear verse
like the above verse of Isaiah 66:23 wherein Jesus (pbuh) also says
"worship me!"? Why must we infer? If Jesus is God or the Son
of God then this is his right. The Bible should be
overflowing with verses where Jesus explicitly commands his
followers to worship him, where God explicitly commands mankind
to worship his son, where God explicitly threatens those who do
not worship His son with brimstone and hellfire, and so forth. The Bible
is overflowing with verses like this from God about Himself, and
from Jesus (pbuh) about God, but there are none from Jesus (pbuh)
about himself. Why is it necessary:
while it is not necessary:
Is this not a fair request? 1.2.4.3
But people "worshipped" Jesus and he did not object With regard to John 9:38 "Lord. I
believe, and he worshipped him." and Matthew 28:17 "they
saw him, they worshipped him." Please note that the word
translated as "worshipped" in both verses is the GREEK
word "prosekunesan" which is derived from the root word
proskuneo {pros-ku-neh'-o}. The literal meaning of this word is (and I
quote): "to kiss, like a dog licking his masters hand."
This word also has the general meaning of "bow, crouch, crawl,
kneel or prostrate." Please check the Strong's concordance for
the true meaning of this word. Is the act of kissing someone's hand the
same as worshipping him? Once again, selective translation. However, the above two verses of John and
Matthew are not the only two verses of the Bible were such selective
translation techniques are employed in order to impress upon the reader
a chosen doctrine. For example, in the "Gospel of Matthew" the
English "translation" records that Jesus was
"worshipped" by Magi that came from the East (2:11); by a
ruler (9:18) , by boat people (14:33), by a Canaanite woman (15:24), by
the mother of the Zebedees (20:20); and by Mary Magdalene and the other
Mary (28:9) to name but a very few. Since worshipping any one other than God is
a fundamental sin, therefore, the reader understands that Jesus was God
since he condoned them "worshipping" him. Since Jesus (pbuh)
never once in the whole Bible ever told anyone "worship me!"
(as God Himself does in many places), therefore, once again, we are told
that Jesus was "hinting" that he wants us to worship him.
However, as we can plainly see, what the author was in fact saying in
these verses is that these people "fell at Jesus' feet,"
or that these people "knelt before Jesus." How then shall we interpret their
"kneeling down before Jesus."? Should we understand that they
were "praying" to him? Far from it! Let us ask the Bible to
explain: "And when Abigail saw David, she
hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on her face, and
bowed herself to the ground, And fell at his feet, and said, Upon me, my
lord, [upon] me [let this] iniquity [be]: and let thine handmaid, I pray
thee, speak in thine audience, and hear the words of thine
handmaid." 1 Samuel 25:23-24 When Abigail "fell before" king
David was she "worshipping" him? Was she "praying"
to him? When she addressed him as "my lord," did she mean that
he was her God?. Similarly, "Then she went in, and fell at his
(Elisha's) feet, and bowed
herself to the ground, and took up her son, and went out." 2 Kings 4:37 "And his (Joseph's) brethren also
went and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold, we [be] thy
servants." Genesis 50:18 "And there went over a ferry boat
to carry over the king's household, and to do what he thought good. And
Shimei the son of Gera fell down before the king, as he was come over
Jordan;" 2 Samuel 19:18 "Worship" is one of those English
words which carry a double meaning. The one most popular among most
people is "to pray to." This is the meaning that
immediately springs into everyone's mind when they read this word.
However, "worship" has another meaning. It also means "to
respect," "to reverence," or "to adore"
(see for example Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, tenth
edition). The second meaning is used more frequently in England than,
for example, in the United States. However, the first remains the most
popular and well known meaning in any English speaking country. Even at
that, in Britain it is not at all uncommon even in this age to find the
British addressing their nobles as "your worship." What the translators have done when
translating these verse is that they have "technically"
translated the word correctly, however, the true meaning of this word is
now completely lost. Finally, in order to seal the proof of this
matter and to dispel any lingering doubt that may remain in the reader's
mind, the reader is encouraged to obtain a copy of the "New English
Bible." In it they will find the translations of the quoted verses
to read:
Please also read the translation of these
verses in "The Complete Bible, an American Translation" By
Edward Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith where they are once again
honestly translated as:
Once again, we remember that such sublime
manipulation of the translation in order to establish with the reader a
chosen doctrine was exposed by God in the noble Qur'an. The Qur'an says:
"There is among them a party who
distort the Scripture with their tongues that you might think that it is
from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture; and they say, 'It
is from God,' but it is not from God; and they speak a lie against God,
and [well] they know it!" The Qur'an,
A'al-Umran(3):78 1.2.4.4
But he doesn't need to say it Mr. J., you say: "Does Jesus say,
'I am God'? No." I am glad we agree. "...because that
would have been misunderstood. Jesus is not the Father (as it would have
been thought), Jesus is the Son." What?, are you claiming that
Jesus is incapable when telling his disciples "worship the
Father" to add the words "...and the Son"? Are you
claiming that the people he is talking to are incapable of comprehending
that one is the father and the other is the son? Would you have us
believe that his twelve apostles were so dense that they could not
comprehend the difference between a "father" and a
"son"? Are there no words in his language to say "I am
not God but His son, worship both of us"? When you
claim that Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross, do you misunderstand this to
mean that God the "Father" is the one who died on the cross?
When you claim that Jesus was "begotten" by God, do you
misunderstand this to mean that Jesus begat the Father? Are Jesus'
twelve hand-picked apostles truly in you estimation so backward and
dense? This is not how Muslims regard them. With regard to the miracles of Jesus being
proof of his Godhead please read my comments about other prophets and
their miracles (Section 2.2.3). What you appear to be trying to say is that
the fact that Jesus never told anyone to worship him nor claimed to be
God but left it up to them to surmise by themselves is proof that he
wanted them to worship him? God must command us to worship him, and
Jesus must command us to worship God, but Jesus (pbuh) receives worship "without
censure" without asking for it? Why then is the same not true
for God Himself? Why did God Himself not simply remain quiet (like
Jesus) and expect us to "gather" and "observe" that
He wishes us to worship Him. Why does God Himself not receive "without
censure" worship until He asks for it? Why? With regard to the opening verses of John,
they have already been dealt with in detail. Jesus (pbuh) never in his lifetime told
anyone to worship him. It was others who did that. Quite the contrary,
whenever Jesus (pbuh) spoke of worship, he always attributed it to God
and never himself: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him
only shalt thou serve" Luke 4:8. Notice the words: "Him ONLY."
Jesus did not say "US only," or "Him and I only."
How could he possibly make it more clear than that? What abstract
meaning are we now going to concoct for this verse to show that what
Jesus "really" meant was "worship BOTH of
us"? The problem with many apologists is that
they "interpret" the words "he" and "him"
to mean "we" and "us" when it suits them, and to
mean "he" and "him" only when it suits them. In
cases such as Luke 4:8, they claim that "him" really
means "us." But in cases where God "begets" Jesus,
or where God "sacrifices" Jesus, "him" and
"he" is God alone and does not mean "us" and
"we." Notice the trend ? But there is more:
Strangely enough, even though Jesus is
regarded as the "incarnation" of God, and wholly equal to God
in every respect, and all three are "one" God, still, no one
has ever gone on and attempted to explain if this is so why Jesus would
then need to pray, let alone to his own self:
etc. If Jesus (pbuh) "is" God, and if
both are different names for one "triune" God, and if all
three "persons" are "co-equal, co-eternal, and
consubstantial," then is Jesus praying to himself? Is he praying to
another side of his own personality? Is he praying to his own essence?
Why? Why does the "incarnation" of God need to pray, beseech,
sweat, and plead with his own essence? If I have both a father and a
number of sons, then can my "fatherly" nature plead with my
"sonly" nature to save it from danger? Why? For what purpose? "Many will say to me (Jesus) in
that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy
name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye
that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22 1.2.5:
Historical origin of the "Trinity" myth "And
you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
John 8:32 Mr. J says: "Most
"proofs" against the traditional teachings of Christianity
consist of pitting one passage of Scripture against another."
Should it not be impossible to "pit one verse of the Bible
against another"? Should the verses of the Bible not be
consistent? Should they not reinforce each other rather that refute each
other? What kind of logic is this? As we shall now begin to see, humanity has
over the ages taken great liberties with the text of the Bible. This has
ultimately resulted in countless contradictions between the verses. This
means that as a result of this continuous unrelenting tampering, the
message of the Bible can no longer be trusted as the original 100%
unchanged word of God. The Bible itself bears witness that a "false
witness" will always result in discrepancy (Mark 14:56). Mr. J
continues, "...and almost always taking such passages out of
context." Please go back to such verses as "I
and my father are one" and the many others which we have just
dealt with in the last two sections and see whether Muslims or the
Church quote the Bible out of context? Please show me where I have been
unjust or unfaithful in my presentation of the verses. If the Bible had
remained 100% the word of God then it would be impossible for it's
verses to contradict each other, however, if mankind has been taking
liberties with the words of God then the verses will indeed contradict
themselves: "Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it
been from other than Allah, they would have surely found therein much
discrepancy." The Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):82. Why not apply the
same test to the Bible? "The Christian message about Jesus
revolves around three facts: the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the
resurrection." Have we now
totally given up on such matters as the "Trinity," the
"original sin," the "atonement," and so forth...? We
have already disproved all of these. "Prove from the Bible or
otherwise that any one of these three things are not true, and like a
three-legged stool the truth of the message would collapse."
Please go back and have another look at your stool. Does it not need the
doctrines of "Trinity," "begotten son of God,"
"original sin" and "atonement." In order to remain
standing? If you would like, you can find many very serious
discrepancies in the narration of the crucifixion and many other matters
in Ahmed Deedat's books "The Choice," and "Crucifixion or
Cruci-fiction," as well as his many other publications (you may get
a sample from sections 2.1 and 2.2). But someone may now say: "If the
Trinity was not revealed by God Almighty or Jesus (pbuh) then why does
Christianity believe in it?" The answer lies in the council of
Nicea of 325 CE. In "The New Catholic
Encyclopedia" (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur,
indicating official approval) we get a glimpse of how the concept of the
Trinity was not introduced into Christianity until close to four hundred
years after Jesus (pbuh): ".......It is difficult in the
second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and
straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and
theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity. Trinitarian
discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat unsteady
silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the
part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly
growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of
Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification.
There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians
of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an
unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian
origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only
then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God
in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and
thought ... it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal
development" (emphasis added).
"The New Catholic Encyclopedia,"
Volume XIV, p. 295 They admit it!!! Jesus (pbuh), John,
Matthew, Luke, Mark, all of the apostles, and even Paul, were completely
unaware of any "Trinity." !! So what did exactly happen in this fourth
century CE? Let us ask Mr. David F. Wright, a senior lecturer in
Ecclesiastical History at the University of Edinburough. Mr. Wright has
published a detailed account of the development of the doctrine of the
"Trinity." We read: "...Arius was a senior presbyter in
charge of Baucalis, one of the twelve 'parishes' of Alexandria. He was a
persuasive preacher, with a following of clergy and ascetics, and even
circulated his teaching in popular verse and songs. Around 318 CE, he
clashed with Bishop Alexander. Arius claimed that Father alone was
really God; the Son was essentially different from his father. He did
not possess by nature or right any of the divine qualities of
immortality, sovereignty, perfect wisdom, goodness, and purity. He did
not exist before he was begotten by the father. The father produced him
as a creature. Yet as the creator of the rest of creation, the son
existed 'apart from time before all things'. Nevertheless, he did not
share in the being of God the Father and did not know him
perfectly." Wright goes on to demonstrate in this book how before
the third century CE the "three" were separate in Christian
belief and each had his or it's own status.
"Eerdman's Handbook to the History of
Christianity," chapter on "Councils and Creeds," Tertullian (155-220AD), a lawyer and
presbyter of the third-century Church in Carthage, was the first
Christian to coin the word "Trinity" when he put forth the
theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but
all are of one being of substance with the Father (Interpreter's
Dictionary of the Bible, V4, p. 711). About this time, two separate events were
about to lead up to the official recognition of the church by the Roman
empire. On the one hand, Emperor Constantine, the pagan emperor of the
Romans, began to notice the increasing number of converts to the new
faith among his subjects. They were no longer a petty fringe sect of no
great concern to the empire, rather, their presence was becoming
increasingly noticeable, and the severe division and animosity between
their ranks was beginning to pose a serious threat to the internal
stability of the empire as a whole. On the Christian front, controversy over
the matter of the Trinity had in 318C.E. once again just blown up
between two church men from Alexandria, Arius, the deacon, and
Alexander, his bishop. Now Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.
The emperor sent these men many letters encouraging them to put aside
their "trivial" disputes regarding the nature of God and the
"number" of God, etc. To one who had become accustomed to
being surrounded by countless gods, and goddesses, and demi-gods, and
man-gods, and incarnations of gods, and resurrections of gods, and so
forth, the issue of whether a given sect worshipped one god or three
gods or "three gods in one" was all very trivial and
inconsequential. After several repeated attempts by the
emperor to pacify them failed, he finally found himself in 325 CE faced
with two serious controversies that divided his Christian subjects: the
observance of the Passover on Easter Sunday, and the concept of the
Trinity. Emperor Constantine realized that a unified church was
necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiations failed to settle the
dispute, the emperor called the "Council of Nicea" in
order to resolve these, and other matters. The council met and voted on
whether Jesus (pbuh) was God or not. They effectively voted Jesus into
the position of God with an amendment condemning all Christians who
believed in the unity of God. There is even extensive proof that most of
those who signed this decree did not actually believe in it or
understand it but thought it politically expedient to do so.
Neo-Platonic philosophy was the means by which this newly defined
doctrine of "Trinity" was formulated. One of the attendees,
Apuleius, wrote "I pass over in silence," explaining
that "those sublime and Platonic doctrines understood by very
few of the pious, and absolutely unknown to every one of the
profane." The vast majority of the others signed under
political pressure consoling themselves with such words as "the
soul is nothing worse for a little ink." It is narrated that
out of the 2030 attendees, only 318 readily accepted this creed
("Al-Seerah Al-Nabawiyya", Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi, p. 306).
They then approved the doctrine of homoousious meaning: of "CO-EQUALITY,
CO-ETERNITY, AND CONSUBSTANTIALITY" of the second person of
the Trinity with the Father. The doctrine became known as the Creed
of Nicea. Only on returning home did other attendees
such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chaledon and Theognis of Nicaea
summon the courage to express to Constantine in writing how much they
regretted having put their signatures to the Nicene formula: "We
committed an impious act, O Prince," wrote Eusebius of
Nicomedia, "by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of
you." However, the damage was already done and
there would be no undoing it now. It has been recorded that thirteen
conferences were held in the fourth century wherein Arius and his
beliefs were condemned. On the other hand, fifteen supported him. While
seventeen conferences issued decrees similar to the beliefs of the
Arians ("Al-Seerah Al-Nabawiyya", Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi, p.
306). Of the fruits of this council, Jesus (pbuh)
was made "Very God." Shortly thereafter, his mother Mary (pbuh)
was given the title of "Ever Virgin." It would not be long
until these concepts were later combined in 431AD to give her the title
"Theotokos" (God-bearing). This is how she became known to us
as "Mother of God." The persecution of the Jews was just now
getting into full swing and with it a severe disdain and intolerance for
all Christians who did not convert to the new creeds. The books of Arius
and his sympathizers were ordered to be burnt, and a reign of terror
proclaimed for all those who did not conform with the new,
"official" Christian beliefs. The following is one of the
public declarations in this regard: "Understand
now by this present statute, Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites,
Paulinians, you who are called Cataphrygians ... with what a tissue of
lies and vanities, with what destructive and venomous errors, your
doctrines are inextricably woven! We give you warning... Let none of you
presume, from this time forward, to meet in congregations. To prevent
this, we command that you be deprived of all the houses in which you
have been accustomed to meet .. . and that these should be handed over
immediately to the catholic [i.e. official] church." Following the Conference of Nicea, the
matter of the "Trinity" remained far from settled. Despite
high hopes for such on the part of Constantine, Arius and the new bishop
of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter
even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism" became a
catch-word from that time onward for anyone who didn't hold to the newly
defined doctrine of the Trinity. Athanasius, the bishop who is popularly
credited for having formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he
wrote on the matter, the more his thoughts recoiled upon themselves and
the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.
After the Council of Chalcedon in 451, debate on the matter was no
longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered
blasphemy and earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to
death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering
thousand because of this difference of belief. Some people might object that the words of
all of these eminent Christian scholars and highly respected references
are all in error. They claim that Jesus (pbuh) did indeed teach the
"Trinity" to the disciples, but that he did so in secret to
them alone. The disciples then went on and secretly taught others, and
then a couple of centuries later it was made public knowledge. However,
not only is this theory based upon no evidence from the Bible, but it
actually contradicts the words of Jesus himself: "Jesus answered him, I spake openly
to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither
the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing." John 18:20 Worship of the Roman sun-god was very
popular during the third century CE among the pagan Gentiles as it had
been for centuries before that. As had become the popular custom,
Emperor Constantine (who presided over the council of Nicea) was
popularly considered to be the "manifestation" or
"incarnation" of the supreme Roman sun-god. For this reason,
in order to please Constantine, the Trinitarian church compromised with
him on the following points:
Muhammad Ata' Ur Rahim records that
Constantine was determined that the masses not think that he had forced
these bishops to sign against their will, so he resorted to a miracle of
God: Stacks of somewhere between 270 and 4,000 Gospels (one copy of all
available Gospels at the time) were placed underneath the conference
table and the door to the room was locked. The Bishops were told to pray
earnestly all night, and the next morning "miraculously" only
the Gospels acceptable to Athanasius (The Trinitarian Bishop of
Alexandria) were found stacked above the table. The rest were burned.
(Jesus Prophet of Islam, Muhammad 'Ata ur-Rahim). "The reign of Constantine marks the
epoch of the transformation of Christianity from a religion into a
political system; and though, in one sense, that system was degraded
into idolatry, in another it had risen into a development of the old
Greek mythology. The maxim holds good in the social as well as in the
mechanical world, that, when two bodies strike, the form of both is
changed. Paganism was modified by Christianity; Christianity by
Paganism. In the Trinitarian controversy, which first broke out in Egypt
- Egypt, the land of the Trinities - the chief point in discussion was
to define the position of 'the Son.'" History of the Conflict between Religion
and Science, Prof. John Draper, pp. 52-53 Those among the Children of Israel who
disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of David and Jesus, son of Mary.
That was because they disobeyed and were ever transgressing. They used
not to forbid one another from the evil which they committed. Vile
indeed was what they used to do. You see many of them taking the
disbelievers as their protectors and helpers. Evil indeed is that which
their ownselves had sent forward before them, for that (reason) Allah's
Wrath fell upon them and in torment they will abide. And had they
believed in Allah, and in the Prophet (Muhammad, pbuh) and in what has
been revealed to him, never would they have taken them (the
disbelievers) as protectors and helpers, but many of them are the
rebellious, the disobedient to Allah.
The noble
Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):78-82 History was repeating itself. God had
cautioned the Jews in the past to never give concession in their
religion to the non-believers. They, however, disobeyed Him and felt
that a little compromise here and there might go a long way towards
facilitating "the greater good" and the continuation of the
faith. This trend was now repeating itself. A small compromise here and
a little concession there, it would not be long until all remaining
differences would be resolved. But at what price? This is indeed why God's last prophet,
Muhammad (pbuh) was once again cautioned to never give the slightest
consession in God's religion no matter how tempting the pagan
polythiests might make their offers. Noon. (God swears) By the pen and what
the (angels) write (in the Records of men). You (O Muhammad pbuh) are
not, by the Grace of your Lord, a madman. And verily, for you will be an
endless reward. And verily, you are upon an exalted character. Verily,
you will see, and they will see, Which of you is afflicted with madness.
Verily, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He
knows best those who are guided. So obey not the deniers. They wish that
you should compromise (in religion out of courtesy) with them, so they
(too) would compromise with you. The noble
Qur'an, Al-Qalam(68):1-9 Many more sweeping campaigns for the utter
and complete destruction of all "unacceptable" gospels to the
Trinitarian Church would be launched over the following centuries. One
example of such campaigns is the one launched during the period of
379-395 AD during the reign of the Christian Emperor Flavius Theodosius
wherein all non-Roman Catholic Christian writings were destroyed, or the
campaign of Christian Emperor Valentinian III (425-454AD) which again
commanded that all surviving non-Roman Catholic writings be utterly
destroyed. Such campaigns would become the norm in the centuries to
come. Muhammad 'Ata ur-Rahim informs us in his
book that Arius was quickly condemned and then excommunicated. He was
reinstated, but was poisoned and killed by the Trinitarian Bishop,
Athanasius, in 336 CE. The Trinitarian Church called his death "a
miracle." Athanasius's treachery was discovered by a council
appointed by Costanatine and he was condemned for Arius' murder. (Jesus
Prophet of Islam, Muhammad 'Ata ur-Rahim) Constantine had made it an imperial law to
accept the Creed of Nicea. He was a pagan emperor and at the time
cared little if such a doctrine contradicted the teachings of Jesus (pbuh)
and the centuries of prophets of God before him who had suffered severe
hardship in order to preach a monotheistic god to their people as can be
seen in the Old Testament to this day. He just wanted to pacify and
unite his "sheep." Ironically, Mr. Ata' Ur Rahim records that
Constantine embraced the beliefs of the Arians, was baptized on his
death bed in 337 by an Arian priest and died shortly thereafter. In
other words, he died a believer in the divine Unity and teachings of the
Arians and not the new Trinitarian beliefs of the Athanasiun sect. This "triune God" theory was not
a novel concept but one that was very much in vogue during the early
Christian era. There was:
...and so forth (please read chapter three
for more). However, it is popularly recognized that
the "Trinity" which had the most profound effect in defining
the Christian "Trinity" was the philosophy of the Greek
philosopher, Plato. His philosophy was based on a threefold distinction
of: The "First Cause", the "Reason" or Logos, and
the "Soul or Spirit of the Universe" (please see section
1.2.2.6). Edward Gibbon, considered one of the Western world's greatest
historians, and the author of "Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire," generally considered a masterpiece of both history and
literature writes in this book: "..His poetical imagination
sometimes fixed and animated these metaphysical abstractions; the three
archical or original principles with each other by the mysterious and
ineffable generation; and the Logos was particularly considered under
the more accessible character of the Son of an eternal Father, and the
Creator and Governor of the world." "Decline and fall of the Roman
Empire," II, Gibbon, p. 9. Even the practice of promoting men to the
status of gods was common among the Gentiles at the time. Julius Caesar,
for instance, was acknowledged by the Ephesians to be "a god
made manifest and a common Savior of all human life." In the
end, both the Greeks and the Romans acknowledged Caesar as a god. His
statue was set up in a temple in Rome with the inscription: "To
the unconquerable god." Another man who was elevated by the
Gentiles to the status of a god was Augustus Caesar. He was acknowledged
as a god and the "divine Savior of the World." Emperor
Constantine was also popularly believed to be the human embodiment of
the Roman Sun-god. And on and on. Is it inconceivable that such people,
after hearing of Jesus' (pbuh) many miracles, of his raising of the
dead, of his healing of the blind, would consider elevating him to the
status of a god? These were simple people who had become accustomed to
countless man-gods, and Jesus (pbuh) had become a legend among them even
during his lifetime. No wonder it did not take them long to make him a
god after his departure. In the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus himself indeed
foretold that mankind would make him a god and severely condemned those
who would dare to do so (see chapter 7). The Bible itself bears witness
to the fact that these gentiles were all too willing to promote not just
Jesus (pbuh), but even the apostles of Jesus to the position of gods
(see Acts 14:1-14). Moreover, the concept of resurrection was
also not a novel one. The Greeks, like many other pagans, worshipped the
earth and associated it's fertility with the fertility of woman. Many
earth-mother goddesses arose out of this belief, such as Aphrodite, Hera,
and so on. With this earth-mother goddess came the concept of a man-god
who personified the vegetation cycle and often the sun cycle. In the
case of Osirus, Baal, and Cronus, he also represented a deceased king
worshipped as divine. This man-god was always assumed to have been born
on the 21st or 25th of December so
as to correspond to the winter solstice (time of year when the sun is
"born"). Forty days later, or about the time of Easter, he had
to be slain, laid in a tomb, and resurrected
after three days so that his blood could be shed upon the earth
in order to maintain or restore the fertility of the earth and in order
to provide salvation for his worshipers. This was a sign
to the believers that they too would enjoy eternal life. This man-god
was usually called the "Soter" (Savior). This "Soter"
sometimes stood alone, but usually was "The third, the
savior" or "The savior who is third." This
man-god would be defeated and usually torn into pieces and his enemy
would prevail. At this time, life would appear to have been sucked out
of the earth. There would then come a third being who would bring back
the dead god, or himself be the dead god restored. He would defeat the
enemy. This is dealt with in a little more detail in chapter three. For more and to learn the details of how
the Pharisaic adaptation of the cult of Mithra influenced Paul in his
reworking of the religion of Jesus, please read "Mohammed A
Prophesy Fulfilled," by H. Abdul Al-Dahir. You are also
encouraged to read "Islam and Christianity in the modern
world," by Dr. Muhammad Ansari, "Bible myths and their
parallels in other religions" by T. W. Doane, and "The
history of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge; a collective
work," Blackie & son limited, 1929. Does any of this sound at all familiar? Is
it just an amazing coincidence that Paul's "New covenant"
which he preached to these pagan Gentiles ended up three centuries later
so closely resembling their established beliefs, or did God
intentionally mold His religion after the departure of Jesus (pbuh) in
order to closely resemble that of the pagan Gentiles? Remember Paul's
own words: "All things are lawful unto me, but
all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will
not be brought under the power of any." 1 Corinthians 6:12 and "And unto the Jews I became as
a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as
under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them
that are without law, as without law, … I am made all things to all
[men], that I might by all means save some." 1 Corinthians 9:20-22. But more on this later. Even though the "Trinity" was
formulated in the council of Nicea, still, the concept of "Jesus
was God," or the "incarnation" (mentioned above by Mr.
J.) was not formulated until after the councils of Ephesus in 431, and
the council of Chalcedone in 451: "...the Catholics trembled on the
edge of a precipice, where it was impossible to recede, dangerous to
stand, dreadful to fall; and the manifold inconveniences of their creed
were aggravated by the sublime character of their theology. They
hesitated to pronounce that God Himself, the second person of an equal
and consubstantial trinity, was manifested in the flesh; that a being
who pervades the universe, had been confined in the womb of Mary; that
His eternal duration had been marked by the days, and months, and years,
of human existence; that the Almighty had been scourged and crucified;
that His impassable essence had felt pain and anguish; that His
omniscience was not exempt from ignorance; and that the source of life
and immortality expired on Mount Cavary. These alarming consequences
were affirmed with the unblushing simplicity of Apollinans, Bishop of
Laodicia, and one of luminaries of the church." "Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire," VI, Gibbon, p. 10. Groliers encyclopedia under the heading of
"Incarnation" informs us that "Incarnation denotes the embodiment
of a deity in human form. The idea occurs frequently in mythology. In
ancient times, certain people, especially kings and priests, were often
believed to be divinities. In Hinduism, Vishnu is believed to have taken
nine incarnations, or Avatars. For Christians, the incarnation is a
central dogma referring to the belief that the eternal son of God, the
second person of the Trinity, became man in the person of Jesus Christ.
The incarnation was defined as a doctrine only after long struggles by
early church councils. The Council of Nicea (325) defined the deity of
Christ against Arianism; the Council of Constantinople (381) defined the
full humanity of the incarnate Christ against Apollinarianism; the
Council of Ephesus (431) defined the unity of Christ's person against
Nestorianism; and the Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the two natures
of Christ, divine and human, against Eutyches." Notice that it took the Church close to
five hundred years after the departure of Jesus to build up, justify,
and finally ratify the "incarnation." Also notice that the
apostles, their children, and their children's children for tens of
generations were too ignorant to recognize the existence of an
"incarnation." Jesus' (pbuh) very first and very closest
followers were too ignorant to recognize this "truth." (for
more on this topic, please read section 5.11) It is not surprising then, that this
doctrine of incarnation is not mentioned in the New Testament. Once
again, the one verse which validates this claim, 1 Timothy 3:16, is
again recognized as a later forgery which was foisted upon Jesus (pbuh)
fully six centuries after his departure: Regarding this verse, Sir Isaac Newton
says: "In all the times of the hot and
lasting Arian controversy, it never came into play … they that read
'God manifested in the flesh' think it one of the most obvious and
pertinent texts for the business." Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim,
P. 157 "This strong expression might be
justified by the language of St. Paul (I TIM. 3.16), but we are deceived
by our modern Bibles. The word "o" (which) was altered to
"theos" (God) at Constantinople in the beginning of the 6th
century: the true reading, which is visible in the Latin and Syriac
version, still exists in the reasoning of the Greek, as well as the
Latin fathers; and this fraud, with that of the three witnesses of St.
John, is admirably detected by Sir Isaac Newton." "Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire," VI, Gibbon, p. 10. Notice how, shortly after the
"incarnation" was officially approved, it was recognized that
the Bible needed to be "corrected" and "clarified"
so that the reader could see the "incarnation" clearly. All
that was needed was to change one word. Thus 1 Timothy 3:16 went from
saying: Before the inspired sixth century
"correction": "And
without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: which was
manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into
glory." to saying: After the inspired sixth century
"correction": "And without controversy great is
the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in
the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in
the world, received up into glory" Thankfully, more recent and faithful
versions of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) are now
beginning to discard such innovations. Much is yet to be desired,
however, it is a start. Even the holy "Easter" holiday is
a pagan innovation unknown to Jesus (pbuh) and his apostles. The name
"Easter" is derived from the pagan spring festival of the
Anglo-Saxon goddess of light and spring "Eostre" (or "Eastre")
and to whom the month of April was dedicated. Many folk customs
associated with Easter such as colored Easter eggs (representing the
sunlight of spring in her festival), the Easter bunny (a symbol of
fertility) are of pagan origin also. Her festival was celebrated on the
vernal equinox (March 21st), and so too is the Christian
"Easter." It was celebrated to commemorate spring and the sun
regaining it's strength. Once again, the "Son" Jesus (pbuh),
regained his power and came to life at the same time (see chapter three
for more). After the council of Nicea, 325C.E., the
following proud proclamation was made: "We also send you good news
concerning the unanimous consent of all, in reference to the celebration
of the most solemn feast of Easter; for the difference has also been
made up by the assistance of your prayers; so that all the brethren of
the east, who formerly celebrated this festival at the same time as the
Jews, will in future conform to the Romans and to us and to all who have
of old observed our manner of celebrating Easter." For much, much more on the topic of the
pagan influence on today's "Christianity," please read the
books "Islam and Christianity in the modern world," by Dr.
Muhammad Ansari, and "Bible myths and their parallels in other
religions" by T. W. Doane. As mentioned above, the very first
Christians were all devout Jews. These first followers of Jesus
(including the apostles themselves) followed the same religion which
Moses (pbuh) and his followers had followed for centuries before them.
They knew of no "new covenant" or annulments of the
commandments of Moses (pbuh). They had been taught by Jesus (pbuh) that
his religion was an affirmation of the religion of the Jews and a
continuation of it. "The first fifteen Bishops of
Jerusalem" writes Gibbon, "were all circumcised Jews; and the
congregation over which they presided united the Law of Moses with the
Doctrine of Christ." "Decline and fall of the Roman
Empire," II, Gibbon, p. 119. As we have seen in the previous sections,
this fact is indeed confirmed in the Bible where we are told that after
the departure of Jesus, his faithful followers continued to keep up
their daily attendance at the Temple of the Jews (the most holy of
Jewish synagogues) in observance of the religion of Moses. "And they, continuing daily with
one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did
eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," Acts 2:46 Also remember the words of Professor Robert
Alley: "....The (Biblical) passages where
Jesus talks about the Son of God are later additions.... what the church
said about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have been
consistent with his entire lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the
first three decades after Jesus' death Christianity continued as a sect
within Judaism. The first three decades of the existence of the church
were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they
(the followers of Jesus) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus" This would also have been beyond belief if
they had preached the total cancellation and destruction of the law of
Moses, as Paul did. Toland observes: "We know already to what degree
imposture and credulity went hand in hand in the primitive times of the
Christian Church, the last being as ready to receive as the first was to
forge books, this evil grew afterwards not only greater when the Monks
were the sole transcribers and the sole keepers of all books good or
bad, but in process of time it became almost absolutely impossible to
distinguish history from fable, or truth from error as to the beginning
and original monuments of Christianity. How immediate successors of
the Apostles could so grossly confound the genuine teaching of their
masters with such as were falsely attributed to them? Or since they were
in the dark about these matters so early how came such as followed them
by a better light? And observing that such Apocryphal books were
often put upon the same footing with the canonical books by the Fathers,
and the first cited as Divine Scriptures no less than the last, or
sometimes, when such as we reckon divine were disallowed by them. I
propose these two other questions: Why all the books cited genuine by
Clement of Alexander. Origen. Tertullian and the rest of such writers
should not be accounted equally authentic? And what stress should he
laid on the testimony of those Fathers who not only contradict one
another but are also often inconsistent with themselves in their
relations of the very same facts?"(emphasis
added). The Nazarenes, John Toland, pp. 73 (From:
Jesus Prophet of Islam). Jesus (pbuh) himself did indeed foretell of
this most tragic situation: "They shall put you out of the
synagogues: yea, the time comes, that whosoever kills you will think
that he does God service And these things will they do unto you, because
they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I told
you, that when the time shall come, you may remember that I told you of
them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I
was with you.." John 16:2-4 Well then, why did the masses in the
centuries after this not revolt and renew the original teaching of Jesus
(pbuh)? Because the Bible was made the property of the privileged few.
No one was allowed to read it, nor to translate it into other languages.
When these privileged few came into power in what would later be called
by the West "The Dark Ages," (our more politically correct
generation now prefers to refer to it as "The Middle Ages")
the Bible was hoarded by these men and they were claimed to be the only
ones who could understand it's teachings. The first authoritative
English translation of the Bible was completed by Mr. William Tyndale,
popularly considered a master of both the Hebrew and Greek languages.
The King James Bible was based upon his translation. He was forced into
exile in 1524 and later condemned and burned to death as a heretic in
1536 for the vile and blasphemous deed of translating the Bible into
English. With the rule of the church came the great
Inquisitions. The Inquisitions were a medieval church court instituted
to seek out and prosecute heretics. Notoriously harsh in its procedures,
the Inquisition was defended during the rule of the church by appeal to
biblical practices and to the church father Saint Augustine himself
(354-430 AD), the great luminary of the church, who had interpreted Luke
14:23 as endorsing the use of force against heretics in order to
convert them. Mr. Tom Harpur observes "The horrors of the Crusades and
the notorious Inquisitions are all but a small part of this tragic
tale." Okay, but surely of those who had access to
the Bible there must have been some who would have revealed these
matters. As it happens, there were. Sadly, they were all put to death or
tortured until they recanted their views. Their books were also burned.
For instance, Isaac de la Peyere was one of many scholars to notice many
serious discrepancies in the Bible and to write about them openly. His
book was banned and burned. He was arrested and informed that in order
to be released he would have to recant his views to the Pope. He did.
There are countless such examples for those who would simply research
their history books. The Trinitarian church's campaign of death
and torture for all Christians refusing to compromise their beliefs
continued for many centuries after the creation of the Trinity in 325
CE. Many brilliant scholars and leaders of the Unitarian Christians were
condemned, tortured, and even burned alive in a very slow and drawn-out
manner. Only some of these men are: Origen (185-254 CE), Lucian (died
312 CE), Arius (250-336 CE), Michael Servetus (1511-1553 CE), Francis
David (1510-1579 CE), Lelio Francesco Sozini (1525-1562 CE), Fausto
Paolo Sozini (1539-1604 CE), John Biddle (1615-1662 CE)... and on and
on. This wholesale condemnation became so bad
that it was not sufficient to condemn individuals any more, but rather,
whole nations were condemned and killed. An example is the Holy decree
of 15th of February 1568 which condemned all of the inhabitants of
the Netherlands to death as heretics. Three million men women and
children where sentenced to the scaffold in three lines by the
benevolent Trinitarian church. Why does no one cry "Holocaust"
for these poor people? "Upon the 15th of February 1568, a
sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the
Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few
persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of King Philip
II of Spain, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the
Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution. . .
Three millions of people, men, women and children, were sentenced to the
scaffold in three lines. Under the new decree, the executions certainly
did not slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest positions were
daily and hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in a single letter to
Philip II, coolly estimates the number of executions which were to take
place immediately after the expiration of Holy Week at 'eight hundred
heads.'" "Rise of the Dutch Republic" John
Lothrop Motly Toland asks in his book The Nazarenes:
"Since the Nazarenes and Ebonites
(Unitarian Christians) are by all the Church historians unanimously
acknowledged to have been the first Christians, or those who believe in
Christ among the Jews with which, his own people, he lived and died,
they having been the witness of his actions, and of whom were all the
apostles, considering this, I say how it is possible for them to be the
first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who
should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus? And
how came the Gentiles who believed on him after his death by the
preaching of persons that never knew him to have truer notions of these
things, or whence they could have their information but from the
believing Jews?" (emphasis added). (From: Jesus a Prophet of Islam) Only today when true religious freedom,
scientific knowledge, and archeological discoveries have come together
in the study of the Bible and other ancient documents have Christians
started to see the truth. An example of this can be found in the British
newspaper the "Daily News" 25/6/84 under the heading "Shock
survey of Anglican Bishops" We read that a British television
poll of 31 of 39 Anglican Bishops found 19 to believe that it is not
necessary for Christians to believe that Jesus (pbuh) is God, but only
"His supreme agent." Muslims too, strangely enough, have been
told this over 1400 years ago by God Almighty in the noble Qur'an. The
Qur'an tells us that Jesus was not God nor the Son of God (in the
orthodox sense), but only a very pious and elect servant and messenger
of God. This is even testified to by Jesus (pbuh) himself in John 17:3 "And
this is life eternal, that they might know YOU the ONLY
true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have SENT." 1.2.6:
The systematic destruction of the law of Jesus Jesus
(pbuh) was a very devout Jew. No Jew could ever raise a finger at him
and say why do you not observe the Sabbath? Why do you eat pork? Indeed,
it is the apostles of Jesus and not Jesus himself who are depicted in
the NT as violating the law. The Bible tells us that Jesus (pbuh)
departed never having eaten pork, never having violated the Sabbath,
divorce was disallowed except in adultery during his lifetime, he
followed the law of Moses to the letter. However, Paul's dreams have now
legalized for all Christians that which Jesus (according to the Bible) died
believing in. You will not find a single priest or
evangelist who tells his Christian followers "to enter heaven, only
keep the commandments" (as his "Lord" did). The vast
majority of Christians today do not refrain from eating pork nor do they
observe the Sabbath as their "Lord" did, and died doing. There
are so many differences between Christians today and Jesus and his
actions. Christians in general follow the commandments of Paul and
others who are given the power to totally cancel out all of the
commandments of both Moses and Jesus, and no Christian has any
reservations whatsoever. Christianity is literally built around the
premise that disciples of disciples, have the power to cancel the
commandments of their prophets and even the law practiced by the alleged
Son of God himself. Let us look at this matter a little closer.
God commanded the Jews to observe a very disciplined dietary regimen.
This is where the Jews get the word "Kosher" from.
"Kosher" refers to all food that it is permissible for a Jew
to eat. Among those food that God forbade upon all Jews was swine. For
this reason we find that Jesus (pbuh) considered pigs such filthy and
disgusting animals that not only did he never taste their flesh
(incidentally, Muslims also live out their lives never having tasted a
single swine), but he literally considered them so lowly that they were
only fit as garbage dumps for devils. In Matthew 8:31-32 we read "So the devils besought him,
saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine
And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into
the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently
down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.." However, shortly after Jesus' departure,
Paul makes lawful all of the creatures of the earth "If any of them that believe not
bid you [to a feast], and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before
you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake." 1 Corinthians 10:27 In one tragic moment, Jesus' lifetime of
restraint was casually swept under the carpet. Many people believe that the vision of
Peter found in Acts was the primary factor in the cancellation of this
fundamental law of the Jews. However, Christian scholars today are well
aware that the writings of Paul are the oldest writings to be found in
the Bible. They were written between 50-60 AD while even the four
Gospels themselves were written decades later between 70-110 C.E.
Secondly, the book of Acts (70-90 AD) although popularly considered to
have been written by Paul, is now recognized to have been written by
some unknown author(s) other than Paul but who was/were sympathetic to
his cause. According to the Bible, Jesus (pbuh) spent
his whole life in strict adherence to the commandments of the law of
Moses (pbuh). He departed leaving his followers with the following
words: "Think not that I am come to
destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfill. For verily I say unto you, TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least
in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the
same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:17-19 Paul's dreams, however, have broken
commandments right and left. There is so much of what Jesus (pbuh) did
during his lifetime that his followers have now totally neglected, not
because Jesus (pbuh) told them to break the commandments, but because
Paul would later tell them to break them upon the authority of the
visions he was receiving. So, what we have concluded from the current
view of Jesus' master plan is the following: 1) Jesus (pbuh) lived among his people for
thirty three years showing them many miracles and teaching them to keep
the commandments of Moses, to observe the Sabbath, to refrain from
eating pork, to circumcise their children, to fast with the Jews, to
worship in the synagogues, and so forth. He did not do this with his
words alone but gave them an example in his own actions.
Whenever he spoke about his miracles he claimed that he did them through
"the finger of God" and that he "can of mine
own self do nothing." Whenever he spoke of worship he
would say "worship the Father" and not "worship
me," "worship the Trinity," or "worship us." He
also never said "I am a god." The term "son of God"
was used by his people for many millennia before him to describe a
devout servant of God and applied in the Bible to many prophets before
him and even to common people. Further, God was understood by the people
of his time to be the "Father" of all those who love him. 2) For three centuries after the departure
of Jesus (pbuh), his apostles and their followers (excluding Paul and
his followers) continued the tradition of Jesus (pbuh) as faithful Jews
and followers of the law of Moses (pbuh). They practiced their worship
in the synagogues of the Jews, they visited the Temple
daily, and for all intents and purposes were indistinguishable from all
other Jews except for the fact that they affirmed that Jesus (pbuh) was
the promised Messiah, which many Jews did not (and still do not) accept.
None of these people, not even Paul, had ever heard of a
"Trinity." Jesus (pbuh) decided not to reveal his (and God's)
"true" nature until three centuries after his departure. He
decided that three centuries after his departure it would be time to
come to the church and give them divine "inspiration" to
"insert" verses in the Bible validating the
"Trinity" (such as 1 John 5:7). These "inspired"
revelations from Jesus are documented by Christian historians to have
been continuing at least up till the fifteenth century CE (see above).
Jesus also "inspired" them to utterly destroy all Gospels
written before this fourth century which did not teach this
"true" nature of Jesus as being God. He further
"inspired" the church to utterly destroy all ancient
manuscripts written in the original Aramaic or Hebrew language of Jesus
(pbuh) and the apostles. He "inspired" them that the Greek and
Latin manuscripts would be amply sufficient. And finally, he
"inspired" them to launch a massive campaign of
"inquiry" to "cleanse" the earth of all remaining
Unitarian Christians or convert them. 3) When Jesus (pbuh) departed, his
followers continued to faithfully follow his example and observe the
laws of Moses. Now Paul comes along and persecutes the followers of
Jesus every way he knows how. He admits that: "For ye have heard of my
conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure
I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it" Galatians 1:13 (also see Acts 7:58-60,
8:1-3) Now Jesus (pbuh) decides to bypass his
apostles and go directly to the worst persecutor of his followers on
earth in a "vision" and give him knowledge not available to
the apostles. Paul now reveals that God holds all of mankind responsible
for the sin of Adam (Romans 5:11-19, 1 Corinthians 15:22). God himself,
however, claims long before Paul was ever born that "The fathers shall not be put to
death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for
the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" Deuteronomy 24:16. and "The son shall not bear the
iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of
the son" Ezekiel 18:20 ....etc. 4) Paul further revealed that Jesus came to
him in visions and told him to nullify the commandments of God which he
had spent thirty three years on earth upholding and teaching his
followers to observe, and that these commandments "decayeth,"
were ready to "vanish away," and were a "curse"
upon us. The only requirement in order to receive true salvation,
according to Paul, is to believe in the original sin and the atonement.
No actual work is necessary. This one belief is the only necessary and
sufficient condition. However, Jesus departed not only never having
violated the law of Moses but also having told his people that "till
heaven and earth pass" whoever would dare to do so would be
called "the least in the kingdom of God." Jesus (pbuh)
was claimed to have been conditioned and prepared for "the
atonement" from the beginning of time, however, whenever he was
asked about the path to heaven he not only never mentioned any atonement
but only (repeatedly) told his followers to "keep the
commandments." Even when pressed for the path to perfection
he only told his followers to sell their belongings. 5) Jesus never in his life saw fit to write
a single inspired word. However, after he died, he started appearing to
countless people in their dreams and visions and commanding them to
write in his name and guiding their words. He did not see fit to guide
their hands from writing conflicting versions of the same story (chapter
two) since these contradictions were intended to strengthen a
Christian's faith. 6) Since the only course to salvation is to
accept the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh) and the law of Moses is worthless,
therefore, God did not see fit to allow those born before Jesus (pbuh)
including countless previous prophets to enter heaven, but rather
allowed them to remain stained with the sin of Adam and gave them a very
strict and disciplined law that was totally useless and could never
relieve them of this hereditary stain. These people shall never receive
true salvation. Only those after Jesus (pbuh) will receive true
salvation (Romans 3:28...etc.). 1.2.7
Christianity's true founder, Paul, admits fabrication Muslims
do not claim that Jesus' true disciples tampered with the Bible, but
that others claiming to act in their names did so later on. This is
attested to by the fact that the Trinitarian church felt it necessary to
totally obliterate all Gospel manuscripts written before 325 AD when
they officially introduced the "Trinity" to the world. This is
why we find such serious contradictions in even the most basic of it's
teachings. For example, we are told that Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) is
the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament. He is
claimed to be the author of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians,
Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2
Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. We would expect such a pivotal
character in the Bible and the author of the majority of the New
Testament books to be able to keep his stories straight at least in such
fundamental matters as how he became a Christian and was
"saved." However, we can find in the Bible a sworn affidavit
by Paul that he is guilty of fabrication. Sound incredible? Let us have
a look: If we read Acts 9:19-29 and Acts 26:19-21,
we will find that Paul was busy persecuting the followers of Jesus in
Jerusalem and dragging them from their homes to be tortured, killed or
converted, when suddenly one day he decided to branch out and persecute
them in Damascus. For this reason, he goes to the High Priest asking for
letters sanctioning such actions in Damascus. Why he would do this since
the High Priest of Jerusalem had no authority over Damascus remains a
mystery to many, however, let us continue. Shortly after
setting out to continue his evil work in Damascus, Paul is supposed to
have "seen the Lord in the way" and accepted
Christianity after being a staunch enemy of Christians and having become
famous for his severe persecution of them. Barnabas (one of the apostles
of Jesus) then supposedly vouched for him with the other apostles and
convinced them to accept him. Paul then went with all of the apostles on
a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem and all of Judaea preaching
boldly to it's people. Paul then appointed himself the twelfth
apostle of Jesus (in place of Judas who had the devil in him) as seen in
his own books Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1 ..etc.. The verses mentioned are: "And when he (Paul) had received
meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the
disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in
the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were
amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on
this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might
bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in
strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that
this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews
took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And
they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples
took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when
Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples:
but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a
disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and
declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had
spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of
Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he
spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the
Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:19-29 "Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was
not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of
Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and
then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do
works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the
temple, and went about to kill me."
Acts 26:19-21 Contradicted by: "But when it pleased God, who
separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To
reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen;
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to
Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia,
and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to
Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of
the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things
which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came
into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the
churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That
he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once
he destroyed." Galatians 1:15-23 With regard to the first two passages,
Reverend Dr. Davies in "The First Christian," says:
"These assertions are not inconsistent with each other, but are
damaging for another reason,: they are contradicted by Paul himself in
his letter to the Galatians (Chapters 1 and 2)." Rev. Davies
draws attention to Paul's oath: "Now concerning
the things which I write to you, indeed, before God I do not lie,"
which makes his account a sworn affidavit. He goes on to say: "To the story in Acts, this
contradiction is disastrous. There never was a teaching campaign at
Jerusalem and through all of the county of Judea (Acts 26:20). If Paul
was unknown to the Judean communities as he says, then he had undertaken
no mission among them. In fact he had never joined the Judean movement
or even attempted to join it. He only saw Cephas, and Jesus' brother
James. Even of the other apostles, not to mention more ordinary
believers, 'I saw none' he admits. Instead of his having gone 'in and
out of Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord' the
Jerusalem community had not even known that he was there. 'They only
heard' he tells us 'that he who once persecuted us now makes the faith
of which he made havoc'; but they never heard him preach it in
Judea." Rev. Davies concludes that "..if there is any portion of the
New Testament that is authentic, it is Paul's letter to the Galatians.
If we cannot rely upon this letter, we can rely upon nothing and may as
well close our inquiry. But the fact is that we can rely upon it. The
letter to the Galatians is from Paul himself and by every test is
genuine." "The First Christian," A Powell
Davies, Farrar Straus & Cudahy, pp. 30-31 According to the narration in Acts, Paul
saw his alleged vision. "Straightway" he began preaching in
the synagogues of Damascus. He built up a reputation through his bold
preaching that amazed the masses. He confounded the Jews of Damascus.
Many days later, the Jews tried to kill him so he escaped to
Jerusalem. He met Barnabas who introduced him to the apostles for the
first time. They were all terrified of Paul, but Barnabas convinced
them to accept him. Now Paul and all of the apostles went on a
preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem speaking boldly in the
name of Jesus. However, according to the narration in
Galatians, Paul saw his alleged vision. "Immediately" he did NOT
confer with "flesh and blood" nor did he go to Jerusalem to
see the apostles, but rather he traveled to Arabia then back to
Damascus. He mentions no preaching in any of these places. After at
least three years he goes to Jerusalem for the first time
and meets only Peter and James and no other apostles. He stays with them
for fifteen days but, once again, he mentions no preaching campaign
either with all of the apostles, with some of them, or alone. He also
has never been here in the past nor performed a preaching campaign here
in the past since he is unknown by face to them and they have
"heard only" of his claimed conversion. Some of the contradictions are: 1) Galatians claims that after his alleged
vision, Paul "Immediately" spoke to "no flesh
and blood" but rather traveled to Arabia and then to Damascus.
So he did not "straightway," if at all, preach boldly
in Damascus as claimed by Acts (How long would it take to travel from
Damascus to Arabia to Damascus? Could he go and come back
"straightway"?). 2) According to Galatians, Paul did not go
to Jerusalem where the apostles were. Rather, he went to Arabia then to
Damascus. Now, after at least THREE YEARS (not many days), he goes to
Jerusalem. It explicitly states that "Neither went I up to
Jerusalem to them which were apostles." So this is claimed to
be his FIRST visit to Jerusalem after his claimed vision. This FIRST
visit is claimed to have occurred at least THREE YEARS after Paul's
alleged vision. However, Acts claims that MANY DAYS after his vision he
traveled to Jerusalem and performed a bold preaching campaign with all
the apostles. Acts also mentions no intermediate journey to Arabia. 3) According to Galatians, upon Paul's
arrival in Jerusalem he met Peter and James and no other apostles.
He can not have met any apostles in Jerusalem before this because he
claims that immediately after his vision "Neither went I up to
Jerusalem to them which were apostles" Rather, it claims that
he FIRST went to Jerusalem at least "three years" after
his claimed vision. On the other hand, Acts claims that the first time
he met the apostles was many days after his claimed vision at which time
he met ALL of the apostles. This too is obviously his first meeting with
them since they all feared him. Notice the words "they were ALL
afraid of him." This would not be the case if Peter and James
had already met him since even if they had never mentioned him to the
other apostles, still, at the very least they themselves (Peter and
James) would not fear him. Also notice that it was only Barnabas who
stood up for him and not Barnabas, Peter, and James. 4) Galatians claims that after Paul's first
visit to Jerusalem all the apostles feared him but then Barnabas
convinced them to accept him and they ALL went hand in hand "in
and out of Jerusalem" preaching "boldly" to
the Jews. However, Acts claims that his first visit to Jerusalem was
after THREE YEARS and upon this FIRST visit he met ONLY Peter and James.
He is not claimed to have gone with Peter and James on a preaching
campaign in and out of Jerusalem, nor could he have done so in the past
with ALL of the apostles since if he had done so he would not have been "unknown
by face to the churches of Judea," they would also not have "heard
only" of his conversion but would have eye-witnessed his bold
campaign with all of the apostles with their own eyes. If the author of the majority of the books
of the New Testament can not even keep the narration of his own
"salvation" straight then how are we expected to believe him
in such critical matters as the "true" meanings of Jesus'
words, or other matters? The fact that Paul never actually met Jesus
during his lifetime, never traveled with him, ate with him, or learned
directly from him would obviously make the apostles of Jesus the first
source of guidance for those followers of Jesus who wished to know what
Jesus taught. Jesus' apostles also did not have a previous history of
persecuting his followers. The only reason why anyone might want to
bypass the apostles to speak to Paul is if Paul began to receive a
series of holy visions from Jesus. The apostles did not claim to be
receiving visions from Jesus, so obviously, Paul's claims that he was
receiving divine visions from Jesus would go a long way towards drawing
the followers of Jesus away from them and to his interpretation of the
message of Jesus. Paul himself proudly proclaims that he has no need of
learning from any human being, not even the apostles, he is completely
independent of their knowledge and all he needs is his visions: "But I certify you, brethren, that
the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither
received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of
Jesus Christ." Galatians 1:11-12 As we shall soon see, a direct result of
this unwillingness to receive anything from the apostles or to learn
from them resulted in Paul following the sad trend of never being able
to verify his claims through words of Jesus. It is next to impossible to
find Paul quoting Jesus when attempting to spread his doctrine, rather,
he always refers to his own personal philosophy based upon
"visions" he claims to be receiving and inspirations from the
Holy Ghost. When he would differ with an apostle on a given matter, he
could not claim to have first hand knowledge of the teachings of Jesus
since he had never met him. Therefore, he found it necessary to always
resort to extensive philosophization and then claim that Jesus and the
Holy Ghost were "inspiring" this philosophy. As we shall see
below, he claimed to have been singled out from among all of mankind to
receive visions denied all of the apostles, and to have been allowed
through this inspiration to gain new converts "by all
means." He also would claim that "All things are lawful
unto me." The careful reader will notice many other
holes in the story of Paul's alleged "conversion." For
instance, in Acts 22:9 Paul claims that when he spoke to Jesus (pbuh),
those traveling with him "saw the light," but "they
heard not the voice." While in Acts 9:7 those who were
with Paul are claimed to have "stood speechless, hearing
a voice, but seeing no man." Don't take my word for it, by all
means "prove all things." The teachings of Christianity
as they are known today are built upon the claims of Paul, the author of
the majority of the books of the New Testament. He is trusted blindly
because he claims to have seen Jesus (pbuh) in a heavenly vision, to
have been vouched for by the apostle Barnabas, to have met and been
accepted by all of the apostles, to have preached with all the apostles boldly
in the name of Jesus throughout the land of Judaea, and as a result of
this to have endured severe hardship and persecution. However, anyone
who would simply read their Bible will find that Paul himself
swears in the name of God Almighty that this is a fabrication because
Judaea had never even seen his face and had "heard only" of
his alleged conversion. Further, he never met any of the apostles save
Peter and James. Even with all of this the church insists that we
interpret the words of Jesus within the context of Paul's teachings. There are so many more similar examples of
how Paul openly and blatantly made major changes to the religion of
Jesus that flagrantly contradicted both the teachings of Jesus and his
apostles. Another example can be seen in the following analysis: God
Almighty commands in the OT: "This is my Covenant, which ye
shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child
among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of
your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and
you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every
man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought
with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in
thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be
circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting
covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is
not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath
broken my covenant." Genesis 17:10-14 So, according to the OT, God himself is
telling us that His covenant can only be had through circumcision. The
significance of circumcision was also noted by Biblical scholars as
being not merely an external act: "This was His own sign and seal
that Israel was a chosen people. Through it a man's life was linked with
great fellowship whose dignity was it's high consciousness that it must
fulfill the purpose of God" Interpreter's Bible, p. 613 Circumcision was considered of such critical
importance to Jewish faith that they would even violate the Sabbath to
circumcise their children if the eighth day fell on the Sabbath. "and ye on the Sabbath day
circumcise a man. If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that
the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I
have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?" John 7:22 Jesus himself was circumcised on the eighth
day just like all faithful Jews: "And when eight days were
accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called
JESUS." Luke 2:21 John the Baptist was also circumcised (Luke
1:59). After the departure of Jesus, circumcision became an issue of
personal conflict between the apostle Peter who insisted upon it (preach
to Jews only) and Paul who wanted to do away with it (preach to non-Jews
also). "I had been entrusted with the
gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the
gospel for the circumcised." Galatians 2:7 Paul then goes into great details about how
the apostles were wrong and he was right and how even Barnabas followed
in their "hypocrisy" and it was necessary for him to show the
apostles the truth (in the King James Version, the actual word used by
Paul in Galatians 2:13 is diplomatically translated as
"dissimulation.." However, in the Revised Standard Version of
the Bible which was compiled from more ancient manuscripts than the KJV,
the word Paul used is honestly translated as "hypocrisy"). Paul now mentions James (James the Son of
Thunder, James the Just), Peter (the Rock), and Barnabas (Paul's teacher
and protector) in the following manner: "I saw that they walked not
uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." Galatians 2:14 So now it becomes apparent from Paul's
words that, in addition to all the above, the apostles were also misguided.
It would have been interesting to have heard for instance Barnabas'
version of these matters had he been chosen as the "majority
author" of the Bible rather than Paul. According to many similar
passages, it seems that the apostles were constantly in need of Paul's
guidance to recognize the truth. To get Barnabas' version of these
matters, his opinion of Paul, as well as what really happened at the
cross look for "The Gospel of Barnabas," ISBN 0089295-133-1,
at your local library, or obtain your copy from one of the addresses
listed at the back of this book. It is interesting to note that Paul himself
was not even sure about his own "visions." We read: "It is expedient for me to boast;
nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and
revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years
ago, whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I
cannot tell: God knoweth; such an one caught up to the third heaven. And
I knew such a man, whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot
tell: God knoweth; How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard
unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Of such an
one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine
infirmities.." 2 Corinthians 12:1-5 So Paul did not know if the man in his
"visions" was "in the body" or "out of the
body." Paul's vision also contained "unspeakable words"
which were "not lawful for a man to utter." If I told you that I had seen someone in a
"vision," had heard "unspeakable words that are not
lawful to utter" in this vision, and had been commanded by this
person to nullify the commandments which Jesus (pbuh) had upheld his
whole life and had commanded mankind to uphold till the end of time, who
would you say this described? Who had I seen? God Almighty says in the Qur'an: "And if it be said unto them:
Follow that which Allah has revealed, they say: Nay, but we follow that
wherein we found our fathers. What! Even though the devil was inviting
them to the torture of the fire?" The noble
Qur'an, Lukman(31):21. What is wrong with this picture? Even if we
were to disregard Paul's sworn admission of fabrication and were to
accept the established beliefs of Paul's inspiration and infallibility
(a very big "if"), then we are still left with the following
picture: Paul, a man who according to his own
admission "beyond measure" severely persecuted countless
Christians "slaughtered" them, and also "wasted" the
church (Galatians 1:13-15, Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-2, Acts 9:41, Acts 6:5..
etc.), a man who never met Jesus face to face, underwent a miraculous
conversion from a persecutor and killer of Christians into a more
perfect teacher of Christianity than the apostles themselves. He was
singled out by Jesus' ghost to receive "visions" which were
denied the apostles who had accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his lifetime
(Galatians 1:10-12). Paul had acquired such a terrible reputation as a
persecutor of Christians that no one was willing to accept his claims of
conversion. It was only the intervention of the apostle Barnabas, who's
words obviously carried a great deal of weight with the rest of the
apostles, which allowed the apostles to grudgingly accept him. Barnabas
then traveled extensively with Paul building up his reputation among the
Jews as a true convert. Once Paul acquired a reputation of his own, he
had a falling out with Barnabas (Acts 15:39, Galatians 2:13). They
parted company. Paul now claimed that Jesus (pbuh) wanted him to
"relax" the law in order to make it a little more palatable
for new converts, and this is when Paul began to make drastic changes to
the law of Jesus (pbuh). Paul decided that his visions were
sufficient authority to contradict the teachings of the apostles and
consider them hypocrites. Even Barnabas, the apostle who traveled with
Paul teaching him and preaching to the Jews, who was willing to accept
this persecutor of Christians claims of conversion at face value, and
the man who single handedly convinced all of the apostles to accept this
same persecutor of Christians is now considered by Paul a hypocrite and
less able to understand the religion of Jesus (pbuh) than himself. Paul
also believed that "...I labored more abundantly than
they (the apostles) all" 1 Corinthians 15:10. So, the apostles of Jesus were such lazy
layabouts that Paul was doing more work than all eleven of them put
together. All of this even though the apostles spent countless years
with Jesus (pbuh) learning directly from him while Paul, who has never
met Jesus in person, practically overnight transforms from a persecutor
and killer of Christians and the apostles to a more perfect teacher of
Christianity than the apostles themselves. It is quite lucky for us that
Paul received these "visions," otherwise we might have been
lead astray by the lazy, misguided, hypocritical apostles. For Barnabas'
version of these matters, read "The Gospel of Barnabas." Let us time out for a quick analyses of the
above verses:
Summary:
If the apostles who lived, preached, ate, and drank with Jesus for so
many years are all, according to Paul, lazy, misguided, hypocrites, who
were not able to see the "truth" of Jesus' message as clearly
as himself, and if Paul, who never met Jesus in the flesh but is the
author of the majority of our New Testament, is more truly guided than
all of the apostles combined because of his claimed "visions"
even though he never quotes Jesus nor needs to learn from the apostles,
but is, according to his own gospel, more truly guided than all of them
despite all of this, then why did Jesus need to preach the law of Moses
to mankind at all? Why did he himself observe it so strictly? According
to Paul, Jesus' only use is as a body to be hung on the cross. Jesus
(pbuh) felt it necessary to command his followers to strictly and
uncompromisingly observe the law of Moses. He even felt it necessary to
live his life in strict observance of this law as a supreme example for
us. He never once explicitly mentioned an original sin, an atonement, a
crucifixion, a redemption, or a nullification of the law of Moses.
However, no sooner does Jesus depart this earth than Paul uses his
claimed visions to completely nullify everything Jesus ever taught and
practiced. He does not need to learn from the apostles, all he needs is
his visions. That is indeed why he almost never quotes Jesus himself. He
always resorts to his own philosophization rather than quoting Jesus.
Why then did Jesus not simply come to earth right after Adam sinned, not
say a single word, quickly anger some enemies of God, let them crucify
him, and have it over with quickly? Even if Jesus decided to wait
hundreds of thousands of years and only come 2000 years ago, then why
preach a law that is going to be thrown out the window in only a couple
of years? Why observe this law so devoutly himself? Why command everyone
to strictly observe this law "till heaven and earth pass"?
Why threaten them that anyone who would forsake a single commandment
would be called "the least in the kingdom of heaven"?
Is he not going to die for everyone's sins and then come back in
exclusive visions to Paul and command him to nullify the law of Moses?
Is he not going to come back in visions to Paul and command him to tell
everyone that "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of
the law."? Why not preach such a doctrine himself
while he is still among his apostles instead of waiting to first mention
it to Paul in a vision after his death? These apostles that Paul looked down upon
as lazy misguided hypocrites are the selfsame apostles who had
accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his lifetime, who taught all of mankind
(including Paul himself) the teachings of Jesus (pbuh), and who endured
the persecution of many (including Paul himself) to convey this message
without compromise, as Jesus had directly taught it to them. The Pauline
Church (the Roman Catholic church which later gave birth to other
churches such as the Protestant church) was to later go on and
officially adopt the doctrine of the Trinity a couple of centuries after
the departure of Jesus, to severely condemn, persecute, and kill any
Christians who did not convert to their own personal brand of
Christianity, to have presided over the death of millions of Christians
who did not adopt this belief. To have presided over the destruction of
many hundreds of "unacceptable" gospels (some sources claim
thousands) some of which were written by the apostles themselves, and to
have issued death warrants for all those found concealing them... and on
and on. Even with all of this, the Gospel of
Barnabas (see chapter seven) has managed to escape this campaign of
destruction of the Gospels and is available today. It confirms all that
we have said and what the Qur'an has been saying for centuries. It also
presents Barnabas' response to Paul's claims and his account of what
truly happened at the cross and how Jesus (pbuh) was not forsaken by God
to the Jews, but was raised by God, and Judas the traitor was made to
look like Jesus (pbuh) and was taken in his place. Barnabas, of course,
accompanied Jesus (pbuh) and was an eye-witness to his mission. Paul was
not. Getting back to our story... Paul had a
falling out with the apostles and decided that "Circumcision is
nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the
commandments of God" 1 Corinthians 7:19. Even though
circumcision was held in an even higher regard than the Sabbath itself
in the law of Moses and the "commandments of God,"
still, Paul taught that it is possible to keep the commandments even if,
contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, this foremost
commandment of circumcision was abandoned. In the end, Paul decided that all
the commandments of God through Moses (pbuh) which Jesus (pbuh) had kept
faithfully till the crucifixion and which the apostles had also kept
were all worthless decaying and ready to vanish away and faith was all
that was required, thereby completely nullifying everything his
"Lord" Jesus had taught and practiced during his lifetime. "Therefore we conclude that a man
is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28 He decided that the laws of Moses (pbuh)
(e.g. "thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, ...etc.")
which Jesus (pbuh) had taught the faithful during his lifetime were a
"curse" upon them and no longer necessary, "Christ hath redeemed us from the
curse of the law." Galatians 3:13 He then went about explaining the
"true" meanings of the teachings of Jesus and Paul's
preachings are what are now known as "Christianity." Paul himself readily admits that he was
both willing and able to recruit new converts by any means
at his disposal: "And unto the Jews I became as a
Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the
law(Gentiles), as under the law, that I might gain them that are under
the law" 1 Corinthians 9:20 and "...I am made all things to all
men, that I might by all means save some" 1 Corinthians 9:22 and "...all things are lawful for
me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." 1 Corinthians 6:12 We have already seen how Paul also openly
admits that his teachings were not obtained from the apostles of Jesus,
but from a vision of Jesus denied the apostles: Galatians 1:12 "For
I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the
revelation of Jesus Christ." So, not only are the apostles of
Jesus, according to Paul, lazy, misguided, hypocrites, but everything
they ever learned from Jesus is in Paul's estimation unnecessary. What
they have learned from Jesus from direct contact with him is only useful
in as far as it conforms to his "visions." In other words,
they have need to learn from him and not vice-versa. The great apostle of Jesus (pbuh), Barnabas
(the defender and benefactor of Paul), in the opening statements of his
Gospel has the following to say about Paul among others: "True Gospel of Jesus, called
Messiah, a new prophet sent by God to the world according to the
description of Barnabas his apostle. Barnabas, apostle of Jesus the
Nazarene, called Messiah, to all them that dwell upon the earth desire
peace and consolation. Truly beloved, the great and wonderful God has in
these past days visited us by His apostle Jesus (the) Messiah in great
mercy of teaching and miracles, by reason whereof many, being deceived
by Satan, under pretense of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine,
calling Jesus the Son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained by
God forever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul has
been deceived, whereof I speak not without grief: for which cause I am
writing the truth which I have seen and heard, in the
fellowship that I have had with Jesus, in order that you may be saved,
and not be deceived by Satan and perish in judgment of God. Therefore,
beware of everyone that preaches to you a new doctrine contrary to that
which I write, that you may be saved eternally. The great God be with
you and guard you from Satan and from every evil. Amen." Paul himself admits that there were those
who were preaching a different Gospel than his own and were gaining
converts. He does not name his adversaries, but we can read about his
most noble adversaries in two places wherein Paul uses what Prof.
Brandon calls "very remarkable terms" to describe them. The
first is "I marvel that ye are so soon
removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another
gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and
would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from
heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now
again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed."
Galatians 1:6-9 The second is "But I fear, lest by
any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your
minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if
he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if
ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another
gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For I
suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. But though I
be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been thoroughly
made manifest among you in all things."
2 Corinthians 11:3-6 These opponents of Paul were clearly
preaching "another Gospel" and "another
Jesus," they were also obviously operating among Paul's own
target group and converting his converts. All of this even though their
teachings did not exhibit the "simplicity" that Paul
preached but required their followers to work for their
salvation. However, Paul displays amazing restraint when referring to
them by not lambasting them with the vehemence of speech which he is so
capable nor questioning their authority. Rather, he gives a clue to
their identity with the words: "...For I suppose I was not a
whit behind the very chiefest apostles" and "we, or an
angel from heaven," and "unto another gospel: Which is
not another." As we have seen in previous chapters,
Christian scholars today agree that the very first Christians, including
the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) were all Unitarians who followed the
religion of Moses, and that the Trinity was not introduced until around
the beginning of the second century. These Unitarians enjoyed a large
following and spread throughout much of North Africa among other places.
During this period, any Roman or Greek gentile who wanted to enter into
Christianity pretty much was allowed to choose which
"Christianity" he wanted. The one preached by Barnabas and the
apostles which involved a strict and disciplined law of Moses (pbuh), or
the much more simplistic "New covenant" of Paul which only
required "faith in Jesus" and which was later made more
appealing to them by the Pauline Church by incorporating a
"Trinity" and other changes into it so that it would more
closely resemble the Roman and Greek established beliefs of multiple
Gods and father-Gods and son-Gods and Demi-Gods and Goddesses ...etc.
Toland says in his book The Nazarenes: "...amongst the
Gentiles, so inveterate was the hatred of the Jews that their observing
of anything, however reasonable or necessary, was sufficient motive for
a Gentile convert to reject it." (From: Jesus, Prophet of
Islam) If Paul wanted to convert these people, he would need to
compromise, he would need to make Christianity a little more appealing
to them, which he, and his church, did. One of these first Unitarian Christians was
a man by the name of Irenaeus (130-200 AD). Mr. Muhammad Ata' Ur Rahim
tells us in his book "Jesus, Prophet of Islam" that he was one
of the first Christians to be killed because of their adherence to the
unity of God. He is quoted as saying the following regarding the
unending attempts to tamper with the Bible: "In order to amaze
the simple and such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of Truth, they
obtrude upon them an inexpressible multitude of apocryphal and spurious
scriptures of their own devising" (the Gospels in our
possession today). When the Pauline Church gained power and
influence in Rome these Unitarian Christians were officially condemned,
persecuted and killed. An attempt was made to totally obliterate them
and their books by forcing them to accept the Trinity or else to be
killed as heretics and by burning their Gospels. Over a million of these
Unitarian Christians were then put to death because of their refusal to
compromise their belief. In spite of this, their beliefs have survived
even to this day. When Islam came with the call to one God and the
belief in Jesus (pbuh) and his miracles, these Unitarian Christians were
among the first people to recognize the word of God and accept Islam. So thorough has Paul and his church been in
totally eradicating all of the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and his first
apostles that very little has survived. Not even Jesus' (pbuh) preferred
method of greeting his followers. From ancient times, the prophets of
God including Moses, Joseph, David, Jesus, the angels of God and many
others including God himself have made it their custom to greet the
believers with the words "Peace be with you." This can be seen
in such verses as Genesis 43:23, Judges 6:23, 1 Samuel 25:6, Numbers
6:26, 1 Samuel 1:17, Luke 24:36, John 20:19, John 20:26, and especially
Luke 10:5: "And into whatsoever house ye
enter, first say, Peace be to this house" to name a few. Can anyone guess what Muhammad (pbuh)
taught his followers to say when greeting each other or departing from
each other? You guessed it! "Assalam alaikum" or "Peace
be unto you." Have you ever met a Christian who greets other
Christians with the words of Jesus (pbuh): "Peace be unto
you"? So, what do the scholars have to say about
Paul?: Heinz Zahrnt calls Paul "the
corrupter of the Gospel of Jesus." From "The Jesus
Report," Johannes Lehman, p. 126. Werde describes him as "The second
founder of Christianity." He further says that due to Paul: "...the
discontinuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ of the Church
became so great that any unity between them is scarcely
recognizable" "The Jesus Report," Johannes
Lehman, p. 127. Schonfield wrote: "The Pauline
heresy became the foundation of the Christian orthodoxy and the
legitimate Church was disowned as heretical." "The Jesus Report," Johannes
Lehman, p. 128. Mr. Michael H. Hart, in his book "The
100, a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History,"
places Muhammad (pbuh) in first place, next comes Paul, and Jesus (pbuh)
after Paul. Like most other western scholars besides himself, he
recognizes Paul as being more deserving of credit for
"Christianity" than "Christ" himself. Grolier's encyclopedia has the following to
say under the heading "Christianity": "After Jesus was
crucified, his followers, strengthened by the conviction that he had
risen from the dead and that they were filled with the power of the Holy
Spirit, formed the first Christian community in Jerusalem. By the middle
of the 1st century, missionaries were spreading the new religion among
the peoples of Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Greece, and Italy. Chief among
these was Saint Paul, who laid the foundations of Christian theology and
played a key role in the transformation of Christianity from a Jewish
sect to a world religion. The original Christians, being Jews, observed
the dietary and ritualistic laws of the Torah and required non-Jewish
converts to do the same. Paul and others favored eliminating obligation,
thus making Christianity more attractive to Gentiles." Dr. Arnold Meyer says: "If by
Christianity we understand faith in Christ as the heavenly Son of God,
who did not belong to earthly humanity, but who lived in the divine
likeness and glory, who came down from heaven to earth, who entered
humanity and took upon himself a human form through a virgin, that he
might make propitiation for men's sins by his own blood upon the cross,
who was then awakened from death and raised to the right hand of God, as
the Lord of his own people, who believe in him, who hears their prayers,
guards and leads them, who will come again with the clouds of heaven to
judge the world, who will cast down all the foes of God, and will bring
his own people with him unto the home of heavenly light so that they may
become like His glorified body - if this is Christianity, then such
Christianity was founded by St. Paul and not by our Lord" Dr. Arnold Meyer, Professor of Theology,
Zurich University, Jesus or Paul, p. 122 As we can see, this information is not new.
It has been well recognized and documented for centuries now. Even
centuries ago, it was well known that most of what was claimed by the
church could not be verified through the Bible. Thus, a shift was made
from obtaining ones inspiration from the Bible to obtaining it from the
"Bride of Jesus," the Church. Fra Fulgentio, for instance, was
once reprimanded by the Pope in a letter saying "Preaching of
the Scriptures is a suspicious thing. He who keeps close to the
Scriptures will ruin the Catholic faith." In his next letter he
was more explicit: "...which is a book if anyone keeps close to
will quite destroy the Catholic faith." Tetradymus, John
Toland (From: Jesus a Prophet of Islam) As we have just seen, all of this started
with one lone man, with Paul. It stands to reason that one would wish to
study the life, beliefs, and teachings of this man in order to verify if
the claims he made were indeed true. Paul claims that he was a prophet
of God and/or Jesus. We find this for example in Galatians: "For I neither received it of man,
neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ … But
when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called
[me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him
among the heathen" Galatians 1:12-16 Thus, if Paul tells us in the books of the
Bible that he is a prophet, then he can be only one of two kinds of
prophet; either a true prophet or a false prophet. Thus, we must take
Paul to trial and have the court decide for us what sort of prophet he
is. Due to the magnitude of that which is at
stake in this trial, it would be highly unjust to allow personal
prejudices to cloud the outcome of the proceedings. For this reason,
justice demands that the judge be one who's integrity and truthfulness
can be readily and unhesitantly accepted by all. For this reason, our
judge and jury in this matter shall consist of only two individuals: God
Almighty and Jesus Christ. Further, only one single exhibit shall be
brought into evidence, namely, the Bible. Let us then clear our minds
and hearts of all prejudices and let only God and Jesus tell us what to
accept and what to reject. Are we agreed? Then let us begin. Let us start the proceedings with the words
of God. He says: "When a prophet speaketh in the
name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is]
the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken
it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." Deuteronomy 18:22 Now let us move on and obtain the witness
of Jesus (pbuh): "For there shall arise false
Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders;
insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very
elect." Matthew 24:24 Jesus (pbuh) continues … "Beware of false prophets, which
come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or
figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but
a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth
evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every
tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the
fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that
saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but
he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to
me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in
thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful
works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from
me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:15-23 Now that the base criteria have been laid
out by God and then His elect messenger Jesus Christ (pbuh), let us now
bring into evidence the words of Paul in the Bible and allow them to
speak for themselves. In order to do this we shall break up the criteria
set forth by God and Jesus above into seven points. They are:
Regarding the first criteria, we bring into
evidence the words of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 regarding his
prophesy of the second coming of Jesus. Paul says: "For the Lord (Jesus) himself shall
descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and
with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we
which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in
the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with
the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16 Paul in this prophesy was in effect telling
his followers that Jesus would be descending from heaven any second now.
Paul and his followers would then be taken up into the air and meet
Jesus in the clouds. He was telling them that this shall happen while
they are still alive and breathing. Did this come to pass? No! It was a false
prophesy. Two thousand years have passed since and not only has
he and those he was speaking to turned to dust, but countless
generations of their followers too have passed away and we still await
his prophesy to come true. Let us now study the second criteria. Now,
we have to realize that it is Paul himself and his church after him who
are telling us of his claimed miracles, however, we shall accept them at
face value and take their word for it. In Acts 27, Paul is claimed to
have been saved by an angel from a drowning ship. In Acts 28, Paul is
claimed to have cured many of dysentery. Further acts of healing are
claimed in Acts 19. Because of these claimed miracles, many people were
claimed to have believed in him. As we have seen in the previous pages,
it only took roughly three centuries for Paul's teachings to take firm
hold of the very elect and divert them from the original message of
Jesus, from his original teachings, from the observance of the Mosaic
law, and from the continuation of the observance of this law in the
synagogues and Temple of the Jews just as the very first apostles had
done (Acts 2:46). The third criteria draws our attention to
Paul's words: "To declare, [I say], at this time
his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which
believeth in Jesus. Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what
law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that
a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
Romans 3:26-28 So Paul succeeded in overthrowing the
Mosaic law. He completely nullified the law which God, Moses, and Jesus
all upheld and commanded their followers to observe till the end of time
(see Duet. 6:17-18, Duet. 11:1, Matt. 15:1-15, Matt. 5:17-20, Matt.
19:16-21, etc.) Indeed, Isaiah 42:21 presents a prophesy
that requires the coming prophet to magnify the law of Moses, not
destroy it. In other words, God says: "Ye shall not add unto the word
which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye
may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command
you." Deuteronomy 4:2 And Jesus says: "For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be Fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them],
the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18-19 But now Paul comes along and says: "Christ hath redeemed us from the
curse of the law" Galatians 3:13, and "Therefore we conclude that a
man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28 Let us move on to the fourth criteria. Paul
says: "For there is no difference between
the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that
call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord
(Jesus) shall be saved." Romans 10:12-13 The fifth criteria requires that he
prophesy in Jesus' name. And once again, Paul says: "For I neither received it of man,
neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Galatians 1:12 So according to Paul, everything he taught
was by direct revelation from Jesus. The sixth criteria requires that Paul cast
out devils and do wonderful works. This he claims to have done in Acts
19:11-12. The seventh criteria draws our attention to
Paul's words "I am a Pharisee, the son of a
Pharisee" Acts 23:6 A fact which Paul very proudly repeats on
more than one occasion. To which Jesus (pbuh) responds: "Woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one
proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of
hell than yourselves." Matthew 23:15. So Jesus (pbuh) labeled the Pharisees
"children of Hell." Further, as we already know, Jesus did
indeed "never know" Paul. In fact, Paul new so little of Jesus
that he only quoted Jesus directly once throughout his whole
ministry (1 Corinthians 11:26). Only a few of Jesus' actual teachings
are ever mentioned in Paul's Epistles, and even then they are not
attributed to Jesus. They were most likely popular homilies which had
been circulated in the community and thus indirectly found their way
into his Epistles. Indeed, Daniel 7:25 describes the very
greatest of all false Christs as follows: "And he shall speak [great] words
against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High,
and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his
hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." Now, although Paul is not
this final False Messiah, and although no Muslim shall ever attempt to
make such a claim, still, it is interesting to note the great degree of
similarity he exhibits with that most evil of all false prophets. For
example, THE False Messiah shall change times and laws, and so
too did Paul nullify the Law. THE False Messiah shall speak great
words against God, and so too does Paul. For example, the Bible says: "The law of the LORD [is] Perfect,
converting the soul: …The statutes of the LORD [are] right, rejoicing
the heart: the commandment of the LORD [is] pure, enlightening the
eyes." Psalm 19:7-8 And "Therefore thou shalt love the
LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments,
and his commandments, always." Deuteronomy 11:1 And "For verily I (Jesus) say unto
you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall
break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall
be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and
teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven." Matthew 5:18-19 However, Paul says in Romans 7:6 that the
law is dead He further says in Galatians 3:13 that the law is a curse.
In Galatians 3:10 he claims that those who labor under the law of God
are under a curse. And he claims in Hebrews 8:13 that Gods covenant is
old, decaying, and ready to vanish away. As we can see from the above, both God and
Jesus condemn Paul and his teachings in no uncertain terms. They
themselves bear witness against him and his innovations which they
totally reject and which shall be brought to witness against him on the
Day of Judgment. Who better and more unbiased a judge shall we bring to
witness against Paul and his innovations that Jesus Christ and God
Himself? Many Christian evangelists who follow the
theology of Paul would dearly love to provide salvation for their
neighbors. So much so that they can not understand how their neighbors
can not see the clear and obvious love God holds for them such that He
would actually sacrifice His only begotten son for them. In order to
make this clear for their neighbors, they draw many analogies. For
example, a Christian gentleman from Canada once sent our local Islamic
center a six-page pamphlet titled "God our Heavenly Father,"
with the goal of demonstrating the love of God to us. His efforts were
sincerely appreciated and his message was accepted in the spirit it was
sent. However, far from proving his point, this pamphlet only served to
thoroughly confuse the issue. The pamphlet contained a short fictitious
story about an Arab man named "Akbar" who was very moral and
upright. One day, his son committed a serious crime that deserved
capital punishment. The authorities found evidence linking this crime to
this man's house. When the authorities came, the father falsely admitted
to the crime in order to spare his son. The pamphlet concluded that just
as the father's love for his son made him sacrifice himself, in a
similar manner, God Almighty's love for mankind drove him to sacrifice
Jesus(pbuh). Now, maybe it is just us, however, at the
end of the story we were expecting the parallel to be that God Almighty
"the Father" would now sacrifice Himself in order that Jesus
"the Son" would not have to die, just as the "Arab"
father had sacrificed himself to save his son. Although we appreciated
the consideration, still, we could not see the similarity between the
two stories. When a person is good and upright, that
person may be willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good or
for a loved one. For example, if a mother sees her son in danger of
being run over by a car, she may very likely run in front of the car in
order to save her baby. If she raised the neighbor's child with her own
and grew very attached to that child, then she might also be willing to
sacrifice herself for the neighbor's child too. She might throw herself
in front of the car for the neighbor's child as well. However, have you
ever heard of a mother who, when she saw a car about to hit the
neighbor's child, threw HER SON in front of the car so
that the impact of her son's infant body smashing into the car's
windshield would cause it to swerve away from the neighbor's child? As the Bible says "prove all
things, hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21. "And
thou shalt love the Lord thy God ... with all thy mind ... : this is the
first commandment." Mark 12:30 I would like nothing more than to present
much more supporting evidence of these matters, however, by God's will
this sampling shall be sufficient. For a much more detailed historical
account of the above issues, collected from the writings of the church
itself, I recommend the books:
If you can not find these books at your
local library then you may obtain a copy at one of the addresses listed
at the back of this book. For a book that is claimed to have remained
100% the inspired word of God, the sheer number of contradicting
narrations boggles the mind (see chapter two). These matters have been
well known and documented by conservative Christian scholars for a long
time now. It is the masses who don't know this. The information is out
there for anyone who will simply look for it. The historical
inconsistencies and scriptural contradictions are well recognized in
this century and countless books have been written about them. However,
their studies have always stopped short of the final step. People have
generally believed that there is no way to retrieve the original
teachings of Jesus (pbuh) after such extensive and continuous revision
of the text of the Bible by the Church over so many centuries as well as
the Pauline Church's massive campaign of destruction of all gospels not
conforming to their personal beliefs. But where human intellect has
failed, God has intervened. The Qur'an has been sent down by the same
One who sent the original Gospel down upon Jesus (pbuh). It contains the
original, unchanged teachings of God. I invite all readers to study the
Qur'an just as we have studied the Bible, and to make up their minds if
our claims bear merit. 1.2.8
Summary: What is a "Trinity"?: In
the above historical analysis, we learned that in 325C.E., the
Trinitarian church set forth the doctrine of homoousious meaning:
of "CO-EQUALITY, CO-ETERNITY, AND CONSUBSTANTIALITY"
of the second person of the trinity with the Father. The doctrine became
known as the Creed of Nicea. But they also went on to develop the
doctrine of "blind faith." This is because those who developed
the "Trinity" doctrine were unable to define it in any manner
that could not be refuted by the unwavering Unitarians Christians
through the Bible. In the beginning they tried to defend the
"Trinity" through logic and the Bible. This continued for a
long time until the Trinitarian church finally gave up on ever
substantiating their claims through the Bible. So they demanded blind
faith in their doctrines. Anyone who did not believe blindly and dared
to question them would be branded a heretic and tortured or killed. The
following is only a small sampling of the verses of the Bible which
refute this definition: Co-equality:
Jesus and God can not be co-equal because
the Bible says: "... my Father is greater than
I" John 14:28 Obviously if God is greater than Jesus
(pbuh) then they can not be equal. We also read: "But of that day and that hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son,
but the Father." Mark 13:32 If Jesus and
God were equal then it follows that they will be equal in knowledge. But
as we can see, God is greater in knowledge than Jesus (pbuh). Co-eternity:
God is claimed
to have "begotten" Jesus (pbuh). Jesus (pbuh) is claimed to be
the "Son" of God. "Beget" is a verb which implies an
action. No matter how you define what God actually did in order to
"beget" Jesus (pbuh), any definition must require that God
Almighty performed some action and then Jesus (pbuh) came into being.
Before God performed this action Jesus was not. After God performed this
action Jesus came into being. Thus, not only is Jesus (pbuh) not
eternal, since there was a time (before the "begetting") when
he did not exist, but he can also never be co-eternal with God since God
was in existence at a time when Jesus was not. This is very simple
grade-school logic. Consubstantiality:
First go back and read the comments on
co-equality and co-eternity. Next, remember when Jesus is claimed to
have died? (Mark 15:37, John 19:30). If God and Jesus are one substance
then God died also. But then who was governing all of creation?
Remember: "And when Jesus had cried with a
loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and
having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
Luke 23:46 If Jesus and God were "one
substance" then Jesus (pbuh) would not need to send his spirit to
God because it is already God's own spirit, who is also Jesus. Remember "And he went a little farther, and
fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will but as thou
wilt" Matthew 26:39 And "I can of mine own self do
nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not
mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30 If Jesus and God were one substance then
this ONE substance must only have ONE will. Futher, remember "And about the ninth hour Jesus
cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to
say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Matthew 27:46 If Jesus and God are one substance then how
can ONE substance forsake itself? Why would ONE substance need to pray
to itself? Tom Harpur says: "The idea of the Second Person of a
Holy Trinity knowing what it is to be God-forsaken has only to be stated
to be recognized as absurd" For Christ's Sake, pp. 45. Even explaining the supposed
"Trinity" away as a "mystery" does not hold water.
In 1 Corinthians 14:33 we read "For God is not [the author] of
confusion." Thus, confusion can never be His very nature. THIS
is why blind faith was demanded, and THIS is why twelve
million Christians were put to death by the church as heretics in
the notorious Church "Inquisitions" (Apology for Muhammad
and the Qur'an, John Davenport). 1.2.9
Conclusion: What we have learned in this chapter is
that: 1) There is no mention of a
"Trinity" in the Bible by God, Jesus, Paul, or anyone else.
The Pauline (Roman Catholic) church fabricated it around the fourth
century CE and Biblical verses were then casually "inserted"
into the Bible to validate this concept (such as 1 John 5:7 which all
recent Bibles now discard). Jesus, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark and all of
the apostles, even Paul, were completely unaware of any
"Trinity." Eminent Christian scholars (Yes, even Roman
Catholics) today readily recognize this as a known fact in some
of their own most prominent books and approved references. We
have seen how the Bible does not contain a single verse validating the
"Trinity" and that the only reason Christians believe in it is
because the Church has taken it upon itself to "explain" and
"clarify" the Bible for them. Most of these explanations
consist of:
2) Since there is no Trinity, therefore, if
Jesus (pbuh) is a god then this requires that he be a separate
god from God. This means that there must be at least two
gods in existence, but this contradicts verse after verse of the Bible,
all of which constantly beat us over the head with the fact that there
is only ONE god in existence (e.g. Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39,
Isaiah 45:18, etc.) and which is why verses verifying a
"Trinity" needed to be inserted in the first place (Such as 1
John 5:7, which has now been discarded). 3) Since Jesus (pbuh) can not be god, and
he himself never claimed to be a god and never asked anyone to worship
him but only "the Father," therefore God Almighty is the only
one who must be worshipped (John 17:3, John 4:2, John 4:23, Matthew
7:21, Matthew 22:37..etc.). 4) The "original sin of Adam"
which mankind is supposed to have inherited was a fabrication of Paul.
It is explicitly refuted in the Bible in many places (e.g. Ezekiel
18:19-20, Deuteronomy 24:16, Jeremiah 31:29-30, Ezekiel 18:1-9). 5) Since Jesus (pbuh) can be neither a god
nor a Son of God (in the literal orthodox sense), and since the
"original sin" is a fabrication not taught by Jesus (pbuh),
therefore, the "atonement" is also exposed as not part of the
message of Jesus but a later addition to it. In other words, if we do
not bear the "original sin of Adam" then there is no need for
Jesus (pbuh) or anyone else to atone for it. This is simple logic. You
don't need the fire department if there is no fire. 6) Jesus (pbuh) never taught any of the
above concepts to his followers. He only taught them to faithfully
follow the religion of Moses (pbuh). Once we recognize the fact that all
of these doctrines were later insertions into the religion of Jesus,
then we become ready to recognize Jesus' (pbuh) true message as a simple
continuation of the religion of Moses (pbuh)(Matthew 5:17-18, Matthew
19:16-21). He was simply sent to rectify the Jewish religion, return it
to the original message preached by Moses (pbuh), and discard the
innovations and changes which had been introduced into it by a handful
of the unscrupulous. 7) Historical facts show how Jesus' (pbuh)
message was directed at the Jews only. It was only changed from this
original form after it was taken to those it was never intended for, the
pagan gentiles. 8) Paul is the author of the majority of
the books of the New Testament. The rest were fabricated by his
followers and were not written by the apostles of Jesus (pbuh). The
supporting evidence of these claims from these books themselves is
overwhelming. The teaching of Paul in the Bible totally contradict the
teachings of Jesus himself and include obvious discrepancies even in
such fundamental matters as his (Paul's) conversion to Christianity and
his acceptance among the apostles. He claims that the apostles of Jesus
are lazy, misguided, hypocrites, and also proudly proclaims to us that
he has no need of learning from the apostles. Their knowledge of the
message of Jesus is flawed and in need of correction from his teachings
based upon the authority of his "visions." 9) Countless Biblical scholars themselves
admit that it was a common practice at the time to insert and remove
verses of the Bible and even to claim that they were the words of Jesus
(pbuh), God Almighty, and others without any reservation whatsoever.
They readily admit that the speeches found in the Bible were never made
by the claimed speakers. The vast majority of these speeches were the
work of the authors and their "conception" of what these
Biblical characters would most likely have said. 10) All of this was revealed to us by God
in the Noble Qur'an over 1400 years ago. It has only been independently
verified by the West in this century. 11) All of this, in addition to the
prophesies of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Bible (Chapter 6) and the previous
evidence of distortion in the Bible continually verify the claim of the
Qur'an that mankind had taken great liberties with God's scriptures and
thus it was necessary for God to send down His final message, the
message of Islam, in order to restore His original teachings sent down
to His previous prophets including His elect prophet Jesus (pbuh). "And if it be said unto them:
Follow that which Allah has revealed, they say: Nay, but we follow that
wherein we found our fathers. What! Even though the devil was inviting
them to the torture of the fire?" The noble Qur'an, Lukman(31):21 "Allah coineth a similitude: A man
in relation to whom are several partners quarreling, and a man belonging
wholly to one man. Are the two equal in similitude? Praise be to Allah,
but most of them know not. Lo! you will die (O Muhammad) and Lo! they
will die. Then lo! on the day of resurrection, before your lord will you
dispute. And who does greater wrong than he who lies against Allah and
denied the truth when it reached him? Is there not in hell an abode for
the disbelievers? And whosoever brings the truth and believes therein,
such are the God-fearing. They shall have what they will of their Lord's
bounty. That is the reward of those who excel in good. Allah will
absolve them of the worst of what they did, and will award them their
reward from the best of what they used to do. Will not Allah defend His
servant? And they frighten you with those besides Him. He whom Allah
sends astray, for him there is no guide. And him who Allah guides, for
him there is no misleader. Is not Allah mighty, able to requite (the
wrong)?" The noble
Qur'an, Al-Zumar(39):27-36 "But in vain they do worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||