What did Jesus really say?


  • bookcover

  • What did Jesus really say?


  • What Did Jesus Really Say ? - Christian-Muslim Dialogue
     

     
    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:
    1. IS THERE A TRINITY? If so then please present us with as many Biblical references as you possibly can and briefly explain it's fundamental concept. What I mean by this question is: Is God one, period? Or is God three, period? Or is He some combination of one and three? Please write down a brief but clear description of the nature of the Trinity and the exact relationship of each of it's three members to one-another. Please do not move on until you have done so since your definition shall have to stand up to the test of the Bible and be endorsed rather than refuted by the Biblical verses we shall be studying throughout this book.
    1. Is the great and faithful messenger of Allah, Jesus the son of Mary (peace be upon them both), the PHYSICAL SON OF ALLAH OR NOT? If he is, then give us as many biblical references as you possibly can. If not then why does the majority of Christendom believe that he is the physical/begotten/sired son of Allah?
    1. Did Jesus (pbuh) HIMSELF ever say in the Bible "I am a god!," or "Worship me!"? If so then give us as many Biblical references as possible. If not, then why does the majority of Christendom believe that he is a god (not a mortal), and the son of? Jesus (pbuh) is invoked daily as God to forgive sins, cast out devils, and generally sought after in prayer. UPON WHO'S AUTHORITY do Christians believe that Jesus (pbuh) is God? Jesus (pbuh) himself or others? Give as many references as possible.
    1. If it can be proven, through the Bible, that Jesus (pbuh) is not God, nor the physical/begotten/sired son of God, neither is there any Trinity, then will this prove that the unscrupulous few have corrupted the word of God or not?
    "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:
    1. The Trinity,
    2. The divine Sonship of Jesus (pbuh),
    3. The original sin, and
    4. The death of "the Son of God" on the cross in atonement for the original sin of Adam.
    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:
    1. According to you, Jesus is supposed to have been prepared for the "atonement" from the beginning of time. He should know that it is coming.
    2. Whenever he was asked about the path to "eternal life" (i.e. Matthew 19:16-22 ..etc.) he consistently told his followers to only "keep the commandments" just as he had "kept my father's commandments" ..etc.
    3. Even when he was pressed for more, he only told his followers that in order to be PERFECT they needed only to sell their belongings.
    4. Not once did he mention an "atonement" or and "original sin."
    5. The commandments he spoke about were the commandments of Moses and not some "spiritual" commandments. This can be seen in the text itself where Jesus (pbuh) explicitly spells out some of the commandments of Moses one by one.
    6. St. Paul, a disciple of a disciple, is the one who is followed by Christianity and not Jesus. Jesus' teachings are explained within the context of Paul's teachings and not vice versa.
    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:  
    - Explicit Statement
    God is ONE -
    God is THREE -
        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:
    1. "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." Deuteronomy 4:39.
    2. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3
    3. "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:" Exodus 34:14
    4. "Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no savior." Isaiah 43:10-11.
    5. "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God." Isaiah 44:6
    6. "That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else." Isaiah 45:6
    7. "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else." Isaiah 45:18.
    8. "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else." Isaiah 45:22
    This is only a brief sampling, however, it is sufficient for now. So let us fill in the table.  
    - Explicit Statement
    God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14
    God is THREE -
      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:  
    - Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
    God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
    God is THREE None so far Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, Jude 1:20-21
      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:  
    - Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
    God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
    God is THREE - Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, Jude 1:20-21
        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.  
    - Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
    God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
    God is TWO John 1:1, John 10:30 John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
    God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, Jude 1:20-21
    God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
     
    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:  
    - Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
    God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
    God is TWO John 1:1, John 10:30 John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
    God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, Jude 1:20-21
    God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
     
    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:  
    - Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
    God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
    God is TWO John 1:1, John 10:30 John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
    God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, Jude 1:20-21
    God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
     
    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:  
    - Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
    God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
    God is TWO John 1:1, John 10:30 John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
    God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, Jude 1:20-21
    God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
     
    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:  
    - Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
    God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
    God is TWO John 1:1, John 10:30 John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
    God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, Jude 1:20-21
    God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
       
    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
    1. John 8:19: "Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also."
    2. John 12:44 "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me."
    3. John 15:23 "He that hateth me hateth my Father also."
    4. Matthew 10:40-41 "He that receiveth you receiveth me (Jesus), and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward."
    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:  
    - Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
    God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
    God is TWO John 1:1, John 10:30 John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
    God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, Jude 1:20-21
    God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
     
    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:  
    - Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
    God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
    God is TWO John 1:1, John 10:30 John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
    God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, Jude 1:20-21
    God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
     

     
    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:  
    - Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
    God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
    God is TWO John 1:1, John 10:30 John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
    God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14, Jude 1:20-21
    God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
        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:
    1. "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." Deuteronomy 4:39.
    2. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3
    3. "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:" Exodus 34:14
    4. "Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no savior." Isaiah 43:10-11.
    5. "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God." Isaiah 44:6
    6. "That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else." Isaiah 45:6
    7. "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else." Isaiah 45:18.
    8. "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else." Isaiah 45:22
    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?
    1. Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22.
    1. Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14.
    1. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?).
    1. Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38.
    1. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2
    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:
    1. Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."
    2. Luke 11:20: "But if I with the finger of God cast out devils."
    3. Matthew 12:28 "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God."
    4. John 5:30: "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."
    5. John 10:25: "the works that I do in my Father's name."
    6. John 8:28-29 "...I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him."
    7. Acts 2:22 "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know"
    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
    1. Luke 1:67 "Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost."
    2. Luke 1:41 "Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost."
    3. Acts 4:8 "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost said."
    4. Acts 13:9 "Then Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.."
    5. Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak."
    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:
    1. John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."
    2. Matthew 22:21 "Then saith he (Jesus) unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
    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,
    1. "and my servant David [shall be] their prince forever." Ezekiel 37:25.
    2. and "The king shall joy in thy strength, O LORD ... He asked life of thee, [and] thou gavest [it] him, [even] length of days for ever and ever." Psalm 21:1-4
    ..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:
    1. Joseph is called a father to Pharaoh. Genesis 45:8,
    2. and Job is called the father of the needy. Job 29:16.
    ..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:
    1. Mark 14:32 "and he (Jesus) saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray."
    2. Luke 3:21: "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened."
    3. Luke 6:12: "And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God."
    4. Luke 22:44 "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."
    5. Matthew 26:39: "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."
    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:
    1. Was this all just a stage play for our benefit?
    2. If not, then since there is only ONE God, and Jesus and God are ONE God, then was Jesus praying to himself? Why?
    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):
    1. Matthew 12:18: "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen."
    2. Acts 3:13(RSV): "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac,.... hath glorified his servant Jesus."
    3. Acts 4:27(RSV): "For of a truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hast anointed...."
    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?:
    1. Do we say "I forgive you your debt ... now pay up!"?
    2. Do we say "I forgive you your debt ... now I shall kill your neighbor"
    3. Or do we say "I forgive you," and forget the matter?
    Therefore, did Jesus teach us to pray to God that He should:
    1. Say "All of mankind is forgiven ... now pay an ultimate price"?
    2. Or, to say "All of mankind is forgiven ... now I need to kill someone who is sinless"?
    3. Or, to say "All of mankind is forgiven" and that is it !?
    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:
    1. For God Almighty to explicitly command us to worship Him, and
    2. for Jesus to explicitly command us to worship "the Father."
    while it is not necessary:
    1. For Jesus (pbuh) to explicitly command us to worship him, or
    2. for God to explicitly command us to worship "the Son"?
    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:
    1. "bowed to the ground" (2:11);
    2. "fell at his feet" (14:33);
    3. "falling prostrate before him" (28:9), and
    4. "fell prostrate before him" (28:17)...etc.
    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:
    1. "they threw themselves down and did homage to him" (2:11),
    2. "fell down before him"(14:33),
    3. "and they went up to him and clasped his feed and bowed to the ground before him" (28:9), and
    4. "bowed down before him"(28:17), etc.
    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:
    1. "Jesus saith unto her, ... worship the Father" John 4:2.
    2. "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship HIM" John 4:23. Notice: "worship the FATHER," not "worship the Father AND THE SON." Also notice: "worship HIM" not "worship US" or "worship ME."
    3. "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." Matthew 7:21.
    4. "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." Matthew 22:37.
    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:
    1. "And he (Jesus) went a little further, 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
    2. "He (Jesus) went away again the second time, and prayed (to another side of his 'triune' self?), saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." Matthew 26:42
    3. "And he (Jesus) left them, and went away again, and prayed (to whom? To himself?) the third time, saying the same words." Matthew 26:44
    4. "And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he (Jesus) went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed." Mark 1:35
    5. "And he (Jesus) went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him." Mark 14:35
    6. "And again he (Jesus) went away, and prayed, and spake the same words." Mark 14:39
    7. "And he (Jesus) withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed." Luke 5:16
    8. "And he (Jesus) was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed," Luke 22:41
    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:
    • They defined Christmas to be on the 25th of December, the birthday of the Roman sun-god
    • They moved the Christian Sabbath from Saturday to the Roman Sun-day (Dies Soli), the holy day of the sun-god Apollo (see chapter 3)
    • They borrowed the emblem of the Roman sun God, the cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity. Before this, the official symbol of Christianity was that of a fish, a symbol of the last supper (see chapter 3)
    • They incorporated most of the rituals performed on the sun-god's birthday into their own celebrations.
    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:
    1. The Egyptian triad of Ramses II, Amon-Ra, and Nut.
    2. The Egyptian triad of Horus, Osiris, and Isis.
    3. The Palmyra triad of moon god, Lord of the Heavens, and sun god.
    4. The Babylonian triad of Ishtar, Sin, and Shamash.
    5. The Mahayana Buddhist triune of transformation body, enjoyment body, and truth body.
    6. The Hindu triad (Tri-murti) of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva.
    ...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:
    1. Jesus (pbuh), during his lifetime on earth, commands mankind to strictly and uncompromisingly observe the religion of Moses till the end of time (Matthew 5:18). He tells them that observing the religion of Moses and selling their belongings shall make them "prefect." (Luke 18:18-22).
    2. After the departure of Jesus, Paul, according to his own admission "beyond measure" severely persecuted countless Christians, strove to "slaughter" them, and also "wasted" the church (Galatians 1:13-15, Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-2, Acts 9:41, Acts 6:5, Acts 22:4,.. etc.). Paul also looked on with satisfaction as the apostle Stephen was stoned to death (Acts 22:20).
    3. Paul receives "visions" and is saved (Acts 22:9, Acts 9:7...etc.)
    4. Paul is not sure exactly what he saw in his visions. His visions also contained "unspeakable words that it is unlawful to utter." (2 Corinthians 12:1-5)
    5. Paul tells us that the person in his visions was Jesus (pbuh). He declares that he received his teachings of "Christianity" from these visions and from no one else, not even the apostles (Galatians 1:12). In other words, he has no need of learning from the apostles. His visions are higher in authority than anything they might have to say. He then goes on to show everyone how the apostles of Jesus are constantly in need of his guidance to recognize the truth (e.g. Galatians 2:11-13)
    6. Paul claims that all things are made lawful to him and he shall not follow anyone (1 Corinthians 6:12). He also claims that he shall do whatever it takes to get people to follow him, no matter what that might entail (1 Corinthians 9:20-22).
    7. The apostles differ with Paul regarding the "truth" of the circumcision ordained by God and other matters.(1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 2:7...etc.).
    8. The apostles, according to Paul, did not walk "uprightly" according to the "truth of the Gospel" and were lazy, misguided, hypocrites (1 Corinthians 15:10, Galatians 2:14, Galatians 2:13).
    9. Most of the books of the New Testament are written by Paul himself. In them, Paul himself gives an unblushing pronouncement of how he was a vastly superior apostle of Jesus (pbuh) than the apostles who accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his ministry and they all needed his guidance to see the "truth" of Jesus' message and how Jesus (pbuh) and the apostles eagerly appointed him the twelfth apostle.
    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:
    1. A false prophet's prophesies do not come true.
    2. False Christs and false prophets can show great signs and wonders that can deceive the very elect.
    3. False prophets bring forth evil fruits.
    4. A false prophet would claim that it is enough to say to Jesus Lord to be righteous.
    5. A false prophet would prophesy in Jesus' name.
    6. A false prophet can cast out devils and do wonderful works.
    7. A false prophet would be turned away and cursed by Jesus.
    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:
    1. "Jesus, Prophet of Islam" by Muhammad `Ata ur-Rahim, and
    2. "Blood on the cross," by Ahmed Thomson.
    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:
    • Quoting verses where Jesus is made to "imply" that he is God, or
    • Allowing a preconceived doctrine to color one's translation of the Greek text so that the divinity of Jesus becomes "clear" in the English "translation," or
    • Quoting verses out of context.
    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
  • Islambasics.com © 2018