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:
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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:
- The Trinity,
- The divine Sonship of Jesus (pbuh),
- The original sin, and
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Not once did he mention an "atonement"
or and "original sin."
- 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.
- 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:
- "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.
- "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Exodus 20:3
- "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD,
whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:" Exodus
34:14
- "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.
- "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
- "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
- "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.
- "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 5:7The 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 1:1Another 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 10:30The 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 1:26In 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 14:8-9Well, 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
- 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."
- John 12:44 "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth
on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me."
- John 15:23 "He that hateth me hateth my Father also."
- 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 14:6Some 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 analysisAs 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 GodMuslims 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:
- "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.
- "Thou shalt have no other gods before
me." Exodus 20:3
- "For thou shalt worship no other god:
for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:"
Exodus 34:14
- "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.
- "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
- "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
- "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.
- "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?
- Jacob is God's son
and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn"
Exodus 4:22.
- 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.
- 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?).
- Adam is the son of
God "Adam, which was the son of God."
Luke 3:38.
- 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:
- Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake
unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven
and in earth."
- Luke 11:20: "But if I with the finger
of God cast out devils."
- Matthew 12:28 "But if I cast out devils
by the Spirit of God."
- 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."
- John 10:25: "the works that I do in
my Father's name."
- 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."
- 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
- Luke 1:67 "Zacharias was filled with
the Holy Ghost."
- Luke 1:41 "Elisabeth was filled with
the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 4:8 "Then Peter, filled with the
Holy Ghost said."
- Acts 13:9 "Then Paul, filled with the
Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.."
- 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:
- 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."
- 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,
- "and my servant David [shall be] their
prince forever." Ezekiel
37:25.
- 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:
- Joseph is called a father to Pharaoh. Genesis
45:8,
- 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:
- Mark 14:32 "and he (Jesus) saith to his
disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray."
- 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."
- 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."
- 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."
- 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:
- Was this all just a stage play for our benefit?
- 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 servantAll 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):
- Matthew 12:18: "Behold my servant, whom
I have chosen."
- Acts 3:13(RSV): "The God of Abraham,
and of Isaac,.... hath glorified his servant Jesus."
- 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 aboutMatthew 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 savedBut 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?:
- Do we say "I forgive you your debt ... now
pay up!"?
- Do we say "I forgive you your debt ... now
I shall kill your neighbor"
- Or do we say "I forgive you," and forget
the matter?
Therefore, did Jesus teach us to pray to God that
He should:
- Say "All of mankind is forgiven ... now
pay an ultimate price"?
- Or, to say "All of mankind is forgiven ...
now I need to kill someone who is sinless"?
- 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
upA 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 GodOnce 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:
- For God Almighty to explicitly command
us to worship Him, and
- for Jesus to explicitly command us to
worship "the Father."
while it is not necessary:
- For Jesus (pbuh) to explicitly command
us to worship him, or
- 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 objectWith 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:
- "bowed to the ground"
(2:11);
- "fell at his feet"
(14:33);
- "falling prostrate before him"
(28:9), and
- "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:
- "they threw themselves down and did homage
to him" (2:11),
- "fell down before him"(14:33),
- "and they went up to him and clasped
his feed and bowed to the ground before him"
(28:9), and
- "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
itMr. 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:
- "Jesus saith unto her, ... worship the
Father" John 4:2.
- "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."
- "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.
- "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:
- "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
- "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
- "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
- "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
- "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
- "And again he (Jesus) went away, and
prayed, and spake the same words."
Mark 14:39
- "And he (Jesus) withdrew himself into
the wilderness, and prayed." Luke
5:16
- "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:
- The Egyptian triad of Ramses II,
Amon-Ra, and Nut.
- The Egyptian triad of Horus, Osiris,
and Isis.
- The Palmyra triad of moon god, Lord of the
Heavens,
and sun god.
- The Babylonian triad of Ishtar,
Sin, and Shamash.
- The Mahayana Buddhist triune of transformation
body, enjoyment body, and truth body.
- 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 JesusJesus (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
fabricationMuslims 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:
- 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).
- 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).
- Paul receives "visions" and
is saved (Acts 22:9, Acts 9:7...etc.)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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).
- 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.).
- 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).
- 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:
- A false prophet's prophesies do not come true.
- False Christs and false prophets can show great
signs and wonders that can deceive the very elect.
- False prophets bring forth evil fruits.
- A false prophet would claim that it is enough
to say to Jesus Lord to be righteous.
- A false prophet would prophesy in Jesus' name.
- A false prophet can cast out devils and do
wonderful
works.
- 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:
- "Jesus, Prophet of Islam" by Muhammad
`Ata ur-Rahim, and
- "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
