Islam Upon the Way of the Righteous Predecessors - Purifying the Way
Mankind's corruption of the Bible
Misheal al-Kadhi
|
Islam Upon the Way of the Righteous Predecessors - Purifying the Way |
|
Mankind's corruption of the Bible Misheal al-Kadhi
|
|
|
|
|
This file is available as an original ms-word document in three parts to download. You may find this formatted better... Enjoy...
Inshallah this will be a document which will prove the claims of the Qur'an regarding the Bible.
Let us start with a clear prophesy of Mohammed (pbuh) in the Bible:
Three distinct prophesies:
In the Bible we read of the test that the Jews applied to Jesus (pbuh) inorder to ascertain is truthfulness. The Jews had a prophecy thatrequired Elias to come before Jesus (pbuh):
"Elias verily cometh first" Mark 9:12.
They had not seen Elias yet so they doubted the claim of Jesus (pbuh).
Jesus, however, responded to them that Elias had already come but that they
did not recognise him.
In Matthew 17:12-13 we read: "But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not.........Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist".
John, however refutes the claims of Jesus (pbuh). This is one of the Christian's "dark sayings ofJesus" that their scholars have tried to reconcile for centuries. We will leave this matter for them to work out among themselves.
Now, in John 1:19-21 we read "And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?.
And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I AM NOT THE CHRIST.
And they asked him, What then? ART THOU ELIAS?
And he saith, I am not.
ART THOU THAT PROPHET?And he answered, No".
We notice that there are three distinct prophecies here: 1) Elias, 2) Jesus, 3) That prophet.
The Jews were not waiting for two prophecies, but three. This can be further clarified by reading
John 1:25:
"And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be:a) not that Christ,b) nor Elias,c) neither that prophet?"
If "that prophet" were Jesus (pbuh) wouldn't the third question in both verses be redundant?. If we are to believe that "that prophet" is the holy ghost, then did John look like a ghost?. Further, we must
remember that "That prophet" can not apply to any prophet before the time of Jesus (pbuh) because at the time of Jesus (pbuh) the Jews were still waiting for all three. Notice how when we let the Bible speak for itself, without forcing the holy spirit or other supernatural meanings on it in the commentary, or forcing three questions to be only two, how clear these verses become.
It is quite obvious from the above verses that the followers of Jesus (pbuh) recognised that the Jews were waiting for THREE prophesies to be fulfilled. The Bible, to one degree or another, confirmsthat both the first and second prophesies were fulfilled. However, it provides no logical explanation for the third prophesy. As usual, most "professional" Christians with something to lose by recognising the obvious will tenaciously cling for dear life to the established beliefs they were taught no matter how clear the evidence is. On the other hand, those Christians who are sincere are usually the more open minded and are not prevented by fear of a loss of their job...etc. to seethe obvious. (ie they seek true guidance to their lord)
Inshallah this is only the first of a series of articles which will prove:1) That Mohammed (pbuh) was indeed prophsised by Jesus (pbuh) andthe previous prophets.2) That the "trinity", "son of God", "initial sin", and "atonement" wereall fabrications of mankind3) The tampering fingers of the unscrupulous have left countlesscontradictions between the verses of the Bible, such that some
Christian sources claim that the contradictions number close to 50,000 errors.4) Historical details of when the bible was altered, by whom, why theydid that, and how it was accomplished.
May Allah almighty guide us to see the obvious and be guided to thetruth of his elect messenger Jesus (peace be upon him).
Misheal Al-Kadhi
We will continue with two more prophesies of Mohammed (pbuh) in the Bible:
2) Glorifies Jesus (pbuh):
1 John 4:1-3 "Beloved, believe not every spirit (prophet), but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world".This one is very easy to understand: Every prophet who does not confess that Jesus (pbuh) came in the flesh was not sent by God. He is a false prophet. But any prophet that confesses that Jesus (pbuh) came in the flesh was sent by God. What does the Qur'an and Mohammad (pbuh) say aboutJesus (pbuh)?.
They say that a Muslim is not a Muslim if he does not believe in Jesus (pbuh), in his miraculousbirth, in his giving life to the dead by God's permission, in his healing of the lepers and the blind by God's permission, in his piety and chastity, in his truthfulness, and in the fact that he was the Messiah (the Christ).
The Qur'an is practically overflowing with verses to this effect. For example, in A'al-Umran(3):40 we read:
"And the angles said `O Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a Wordfrom Him, his name is Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Highhonoured in this world and the next, of those near stationedto Allah"
So now we must ask: Has Mohammad (pbuh)fulfilled this criteria or not?. Also, please read theeighth point in the following:
3) A "Paraclete" like Jesus:In the Bible we can find the following four passages wherein Jesus (pbuh) predicts a great event:
John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever"
John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father,
even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me"
John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you".
John 16:7-14 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement:Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgement, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come,he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you".
In these four verses, the word "comforter" is translated from the word "Paraclete" ("Ho Parakletos" in Greek). Parakletos in Greek means an advocate, one who pleads the cause of another, one who councils or advises another from deep concern for the other's welfare (From the Beacon Bible
commentary volume VII, p.168). In these verses we are told that once Jesus (pbuh) departs, a Paraclete will come. He will glorify Jesus (pbuh), and he will guide mankind into all truth. This "Paraclete" is identified in John 14:26 as the Holy Ghost.
It must be pointed out that the original Greek manuscripts speak of a "Holy pneuma". The word pneuma {pnyoo'-mah} is the Greek root word for "spirit". There is no separate word for "Ghost" in the Greek manuscripts, of which there are claimed to be over 24,000 today. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible translate this word as "Ghost" to convey their own personal understanding of the text. However, a more accurate translation is "Holy Spirit". More faithful and recent translations of the Bible, such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), do indeed now translate it as "Holy Spirit". This is significant, and will be expounded upon shortly.
All Bibles in existence today are compiled from "ancient manuscripts", the most ancient of which being those of the fourth century AD. Any scholar of the Bible will tell us that no two ancient manuscripts are exactly identical. All Bibles in our possession today are the result of very extensive
cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no SINGLE one being the DEFINITIVE reference. There are countless cases where a paragraph shows up in one manuscript but is totally missing from many others.
For instance, Mark 16:8-20 (twelve whole verses) is completely missing from the most ancient manuscripts available today (such as the Sinaitic Manuscript, the Vatican #1209 and the Armenian version) but shows up in more recent "ancient manuscripts". There are also many documented cases where even geographical locations are completely different from one ancient manuscript to the next. For instance, in the Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript, Deuteronomy 27:4 speaks of "mount Gerizim", while in the Hebrew manuscript the exact same verse speaks of "mount Ebal". From Deuteronomy 27:12- 13 we can see that these are two distinctly different locations. We could go on and on.
What the translators of the Bible have done when presented with such discrepancies is to do their best to choose the correct version. In other words, since they can not know which "ancient manuscript" is the correct one, they must do a little detective work on the text in order to decide which "version" of a given verse to accept. John 14:26 is just such an example of such selection techniques.
John 14:26 is the only verse of the Bible which associates the Parakletos with the Holy Spirit. But if we were to go back to the "ancient manuscripts" themselves, we would find that they are not all in agreement that the "Parakletos" is the Holy Spirit. For instance, in the famous Palimpsest manuscript of the Bible, written in the Syriac (around the fourth century AD.), John 14:26 only mentions a "Spirit" and not a "Holy Spirit" (Remember, Christ and his disciples' native tongue was Aramaic or Syriac).
Are we just knit picking?. "Spirit" or "Holy Spirit",what's the big deal?. Obviously they both refer to the same thing. Right?. Wrong!. There is a big difference.A "spirit", according to the language of the Bible simply means "a prophet" (see for instance 1 John 4:1-3: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world", also see 1 John 4:2), or an inspired human, for example read 1 Corinthians 2:10, 2 Thessalonians 2:2,...etc.
We will describe in the future inshallah countless documented admitted cases of deliberate modification of the Biblical text by members of the Christian clergy themselves, as well as deliberate large scale projects to "correct" the Bible, and the writings of "the early fathers", by them (such as the deliberate insertion of the verse of 1 John 5:7 which is now universally discarded). It is, therefore, possible that either:
1) The word "Holy" could have been dropped by a careless copyist., or
2) A copyist could have inserted the word "Holy" to convey his personal understanding of the text.
Which was it?. In order to arrive at the answer we must follow the same path of detective work the Biblical scholars themselves do. We must study the characteristics of the "Paraclete" and compare them to both the "Holy Spirit" and to a "spirit". Muslims believe that Mohammad was the one intended and not the Holy Ghost. In the Christian's own "Gospel of Barnabas" Mohammad is mentioned BY NAME here. The Trinitarian church, however, has done it's utmost to obliterate all existing copies of "The Gospel of Barnabas", and to hide it from the masses (God willing, the details of this will be presented in future posts). For this reason, it becomes necessary to show that even the Gospels adopted by Paul's church also originally spoke of Mohammad (pbuh).
1) Does the Holy Spirit "speak" or "inspire":
The Greek word translated as "hear" in the Biblical verses ("whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak") is the Greek word "akouo" {ak-oo'-o} meaning to perceive sounds. It has, for instance, given us the word "acoustics", the science of sounds. Similarly the verb "to speak" is the Greek verb "laleo" {lal-eh'-o} which has the general meaning "to emit sounds" and the specific meaning "to speak". This verb occurs very frequently in the Greek text of the Gospels. It designates a solemn declaration by Jesus (pbuh) during his preachings (For example Matthew 9:18). Obviously these verbs require hearing and speech organs in order to facilitate them. There is a distinct difference between someone "inspiring" something and his "speaking" something. So the Paraclete will "hear" and "speak", not "inspire".
Mohammad (pbuh), as seen above, did indeed fulfil this prophesy. Whatsoever he "HEARD" from Gabriel (The Qur'an), the same did he physically "SPEAK" to his followers. In the Qur'an we read: Al-Najm(53):1-4:
"(God swears) By the star when it falls:
Your comrade (Mohammad) errs not, nor is he deceived;
Nor does he speak of (his own) desire.
It is naught save a revelation that is revealed (unto him)".
2) The Holy Ghost was already with them:
In the above verses we read "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you". The comforter can not be the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost (according to the Bible) was "with" them already (and even quite active) long before the coming of Jesus (pbuh) himself and then throughout his ministry. Read for example.
1 Samuel 10:10 "And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them".
1 Samuel 11:6 "And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard those tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly".
Isaiah 63:11 "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?"
Luke 1:15 "For he (John the Baptist) shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb".
Luke 1:41 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:"
Luke 1:67 "And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,"
Luke 2:26 "And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost (Simeon), that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ."
Luke 3:22 "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him (Jesus), and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."
However, probably the clearest of all verses is:
John 20:21-22 "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:".
Did they or did they not already receive the Holy Ghost?. Was Jesus (pbuh) not still with them when they received the Holy Ghost?. Was the Holy Ghost not with Peter and Paul and many others while Jesus was still with them?. Was the Holy Ghost not with Elisabeth and Zacharias before the birth of Jesus (pbuh)?. Was the Holy Ghost not with Moses (pbuh) when he parted the seas?. There are countless more similar verses to be found in the Bible. In the above verses, we are told that if Jesus (pbuh) does not depart then the "parakletos" will not come. Thus, the "Holy Ghost" cannot be the one originally intended since it was already with them. The contradiction is quite obvious.
3) Selective translation,: Jesus (pbuh) too is a Paraclete:
The word "Paraclete" is applied to Jesus (pbuh) himself in
1 John 2:1 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate(parakletos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:".
Notice how the translators have managed to translate this exact same word one way (advocate) inreference to Jesus (pbuh) and another (comforter) with regard to the coming "parakletos". Why would they want to do such a thing?. Does this not seem just a little peculiar?. The reason is that the translators did not want the Christians, after reading "we have an advocate(parakletos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" to then read "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another advocate(parakletos)". Can we see why this would make them nervous?.
Well, what was Jesus (pbuh)?. He was a prophet!. Read Matthew 21:11: "...This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee". and Luke 24:19: "..Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people"...etc. Mohammad (pbuh) was also a prophet of God.
We will demonstrate in the future, God willing ,how the verses of the Bible themselves prove quite conclusively that Jesus (pbuh) was neither a god nor part of God almighty, but an elect messenger of God. The concept of his divinity was concocted by Paul and his ministry during the first three
centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh) and is explicitly refuted by the Bible itself and Jesus' apostles
4) "Another" Paraclete:
Now go back to John 14:16 and notice the words "another Paraclete". If the comforter is the Holy Ghost then how many Holy Ghost's are there?. The word "another" is significant. We have already seen how this term is applied to Jesus (pbuh) himself. In English, "another" may mean "One more of the same kind" or "one more of a different kind". If the latter were the one intended then thecurrent Christian interpretation might bear some merit.
However, if "One more of the same kind" was what was intended then this is positive proof that the coming Paraclete would be just like Jesus (pbuh), a human being and a prophet, not a ghost. The actual Greek word used was the word "allon" which is the masculine accusative form of "allos"
{al'-los}: "Another of the SAME kind". The Greek word for "another of a different kind" is "heteros" {het'-er-os}.
5) "Parakletos" or "Periklytos"?:
Some scholars believe that what Jesus (pbuh) said in his own Aramaic tongue in these verses represents more closely the Greek word "Periklytos" which means the admirable or glorified one. This word corresponds exactly to the Arabic word "Mohammad" which also means the "admirable one" or "glorified one". There are several similar documented cases of similar word substitution in the Bible. It is also quite possible that both words were contained in the original text but were dropped by a copyist because of the ancient custom of writing words closely packed, with no
spaces in-between them. In such a case the original reading would have been: "and He will give you another comforter(Parakletos), the admirable one(Periklytos)" (See examples of many similar cases in the Biblical text in "The Emphatic Diaglott").
6) "He" not "It":
Notice the use of "he" when referring to the Paraclete and not "it". If we read John 16:13, we will find no less than SEVEN occurrences of the masculine pronoun "He" and "Himself". There is not another verse in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible or the seventy three books of the Catholic Bible which contains seven masculine pronouns, or seven feminine pronouns, or even seven neuter genders. So many masculine pronouns ill befits a Ghost, holy or otherwise.
Mr. Ahmed Deedat, on page 51 of his booklet "Mohammad, the natural successor to Christ", says: "When this point of seven masculine pronouns was mooted by Muslims in India in their debates with the Christian missionaries, the Urdu (Indian) version of the Bible had the pronouns presently changed to SHE, SHE, SHE! so that the Muslims could not claim that this prophecy referred to Muhammed (pbuh) - a man! This Christian deception I have seen in the Bible myself. This is a common trickery by the missionaries, more specially in the vernacular. The very latest ruse I have stumbled across in the Afrikaans Bible, on the very verse under discussion; they have changed the word "Trooster" (Comforter), to "Voorspraak" (Mediator), and interpolated the phrase - "die Heilige Gees" - meaning THE HOLY GHOST, which phrase no Bible scholar has ever dared to interpolate into any of the multifarious English Versions. No not even the Jehovah's witnesses. This is how the Christians manufacture God's word".
7) He will guide you into all truth:
In the above verses Jesus (pbuh) is quoted as saying "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth". What does Jesus (pbuh) mean by "ye cannot bear them now"?. If we were to read the Bible, we would find many verses throughout the Bible wherein Jesus (pbuh) bemoans the lack of understanding he was constantly greeted with from his disciples throughout his ministry:
Matthew 8:26 "And he(Jesus) saith unto them(the disciples).....O ye of little faith".
Matthew 14:31 "...and (Jesus) said unto him(Peter), O thou of little faith".
Matthew 16:8 "he (Jesus) said unto them(the disciples), O ye of little faith".
Luke 8:25 "And he(Jesus) said unto them(the disciples), Where is your faith?".
Notice that these are not common Jews who he is saying these words to, but his own elect disciples. The Bible vividly illustrates how he is constantly going out of his way to simplify matters for them and to speak to them as one speaks to little children. However, even at that, they still misunderstand. He is finally driven to frustration and made to say:
Matthew 15:16 "And Jesus said, Are ye even yet without understanding?". and
Luke 9:41 "And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you?".
We are even told that his own people did not accept him: John 1:11 "He came unto his own, and his own received him not".
Jesus (pbuh) had "all truth", but he could not give it to them because they were not fit to receive it. Therefore, he told them that another would come after him who shall guide them into "all truth" which they could not receive from him. He tells us that the one who will come will "teach you all things". This one who will guide them into "all truth" is described as "The spirit of truth". We have already seen how the word "spirit" in the Bible is synonymous with the word "Prophet". Mohammed (pbuh), even before he became the prophet of Islam was known among his people as
"Al-sadik Al-amin", which means "The truthful, the trustworthy". Thus, it becomes apparent that Mohammed was indeed "the spirit of truth". Since the departure of Jesus (pbuh) and to this day, the "Holy Ghost" has not taught mankind a single new truth not revealed by Jesus (pbuh) himself.
It is important to notice the words "ALL truth" and "MANY things". "Many" and "All" means more than one. There were many loose ends left untied by Jesus (pbuh) at the time of his departure because his disciples could not yet receive them. There were many truths which needed to be introduced to complete his message, however, it was cut short before he could complete it. For instance, alcohol abuse is a serious problem in the West. It is claimed that the United States is home to 11 million alcoholics, and 44 million "heavy drinkers". Many excuses have been made for them because Jesus' first miracle is claimed to have been the changing of water into wine (John 2:7-10). St. Paul actually encouraged his followers to
"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake andthine often infirmities" (1 Timothy 5:23).
Now the drunkards are littering the streets. What solution has the "Holy Ghost" given which Jesus (pbuh) never mentioned?.None!. Mohammed (pbuh) however, came with the decisive answer: Abolish all drinking. Period!. He has succeeded where the great "superpower" has failed.
There are countless problems which were left unresolved by Jesus (pbuh) at the time of his departure which were not resolved until the coming of Mohammed (pbuh). Not because he did not have the solution, but because his followers could not bear them. Examples of these problems aregambling, racism, fortune telling, inheritance, limits of modest clothing, ...etc. Mohammed (pbuh) has brought answers to all of these problems. Unlike Jesus (pbuh), Mohammad (pbuh) brought a complete and comprehensive system of law, conduct, punishment, and worship for all mankind. What new and innovative teachings has the "Holy Ghost" given for them which were not taught by Jesus (pbuh)?. The Qur'an says:
"O mankind! The messenger (Mohammad) hath come unto you with the truth from your Lord. Therefore believe; (it is) better for you.
But if ye disbelieve, still, lo! unto Allah belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth.
Allah is ever Knower, Wise".
8) He shall glorify me:
The Paraclete "shall glorify me" and will "testify of me". Mohammad (pbuh) did indeed testify of Jesus (pbuh) and did indeed glorify him and raise him and his mother to their well deserved stations of honour and piety and even made it an article of faith for every Muslim to bear witness to this. Just one of the many examples of this is:
"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 honoured in this world and the next, of those near stationed to Allah".
The Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):40.
Nobody seems to recognise this fact as being at all extraordinary. People generally look upon the Jews as true worshippers of God and followers of a legitimate faith, even if they do consider them misguided by not following Jesus (pbuh) but killing him. Their book is even incorporated into the Bible as the faultless word of God.On the other hand, Muslims are looked down upon as followers of a false prophet and as savage blood thirsty terrorists or barbarians. However, if we were to look at the Jewish opinion of Jesus (pbuh) we would find that an early reference in the Babylonian "Talmud" says that "Jeshu ha-Nocri" was a false prophet who was hanged on the eve of the Passover for sorcery and false teaching. They furtherclaim that he was a bastard son of a Roman adulterer among many other allegations.
Mr. Josh McDowell is one of the leading Biblical scholars on the topic of the Jewish Talmud's view of his "Lord". The Talmud, of course, is the ultimate authoritative body of Jewish tradition, comprising the Mishnah and Gemara. In Mr. McDowell's book, "Evidence that demands a verdict", he quotes extensively from the Jewish Talmud with regard to the official Jewish view of Jesus (pbuh). The following is a small sampling from pages 85-86 of this book:
"Tol'doth Yeshu. Jesus is referred to as `Ben Pandera'". Note: `Ben Pandera' means `son of Pandera'. He was a Roman soldier the Jews allege to have raped Mary to produce the illegitimate son Jesus (God forbid).Yeb. IV 3;49a: "Rabbi Shimeon Ben Azzai said (regarding Jesus): `I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress".
Joseph Klausner adds: "Current editions of the Mishnah, add: `To support the words of Rabbi Yehoshua' (who in the same Mishnah says: What is a bastard? Everyone who's parents are liable to
death by the Beth Din), that Jesus is here referred to seems to be beyond doubt..".
Grolier's encyclopaedia tells us that "...the reliable Jewish sources tell us that he(Jesus) was a Jewish teacher who was put to death for sorcery and false prophecy and that he had a brother named James.".
At a time when such claims, and many others, were being levelled by the Jews against Jesus (pbuh), Mohammed (pbuh) revealed the following verses of the Qur'an:
"Then because of their breaking of their Covenant
and their rejection of the signs of Allah and their slaying of the Prophets wrongfully
and that they said "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word; we need
no more)";
nay but Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their rejection,
so they believe not save a few. And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against
Mary a horrendous fabrication". Al-Nissa(4): 155-156
So tremendous a sin is this lie considered with Allah, that it is not even repeated in the Qur'an. The closest the Qur'an ever comes to actually reproducing their words is:"Then she (Mary) brought him (Jesus) to her own folk, carrying him.
They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with a most atrocious thing.
Oh sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot"
Mariam(19):27-28.
"And when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah hath chosen thee, and purified thee,
and preferred thee above (all) the women of creation.".
The Qur'an, A'Al-Umran(3):42.
9) Sin, righteousness, and error:
The coming paraclete, we are told, will demonstrate the error of the world regarding sin, righteousness, and judgement "he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement". This is indeed what Mohammed (pbuh) did. He came to the world to show them howthey had been misguided in "sin" by believing that mankind can inherit sin (see Ezekiel18:19-20) and that someone else's sin can be forgiven by the sacrifice of others. He also showed them how they had been misguided in "righteousness" by believing that a righteous person is one who has "faith" in the crucifixion and does nothing else (Romans 3:28), or who believes that another man's death will make him a righteous person (Romans 5:19). And they were misguided in "judgement" by believing that they will be judged by "faith" and other people's deeds and not their own deeds (Mark 16:16), or that God's "judgement" was to punish all mankind for the sin of one man (Romans 5:16, 5:18).
Mohammed (pbuh) taught that the unscrupulous had altered the words of Jesus (pbuh) and his faithful followers after their passing. He taught that no one will be held accountable by God for anyone else's sin. Similarly, no one can bear my sin. He emphasised that God has made this a life of work and the next life one of reward and no work.
He also revealed that mankind will be judged one at a time according to their own individual actions and no one else's.
10) That he may abide with you for ever:
In these verses, Jesus (pbuh) is quoted as saying that the coming Paraclete will "abide with you forever". What does he mean by this?. Let us read John 8:51-55
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall NEVER SEE DEATH. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying".
and also
John 10:28 "And I (Jesus) give unto them (the believers) eternal life; and they shall NEVER PERISH, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand".
Jesus (pbuh) is quoted many times in the Bible as telling his followers that they will never taste death. However, there is not a single one of them alive to this day. Was he lying?. Of course not!. As seen above, Jesus' (pbuh) followers were constantly misunderstanding his words. The were not yet ready to "bear" his words. He was telling them that a man lives on without death through his faith.
Jesus' (pbuh) followers will live on through their faith and teachings, Jesus (pbuh) lives among us through his faith and teachings, and even Abraham (pbuh) lives on among them and us through his faith and teachings. In a similar manner, the coming Paraclete will live eternally with us through his faith and teachings.
The Paracletos will be the last prophet, because he will "abide with you forever" and "he will guide you into all truth" (Greek "into the whole truth") and "he shall teach you all things", so there will be no need for any further prophets. In the Qur'an, al-Ahzab(33):40 we read:
"Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he isthe messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; andAllah is Aware of all things".
And al-Maidah(5):3 "This day have I (God) perfected your religion for you (mankind) and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you as religion AL-ISLAM".
So the religion of Islam is the last message to mankind and it, as well as the Qur'an, will abide with them forever. To this day, Mohammed (pbuh) abides with us through the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
Jesus (pbuh) had "the whole truth" and had many things he longed to teach his disciples but he could not give it to them because they "cannot bear them now". These matters would only be revealed six centuries later by God through the agency of Mohammad (pbuh). What new truths has the Holy Spirit guided us into after the departure of Jesus (pbuh) which Jesus (pbuh) had no say in?.11) He will show you things to come:
There were many prophesies made in the Qur'an and in the Sunnah (tradition) of the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) himself. For instance, in the opening verses of the chapter of al- Room (The Romans), we read:
"The Romans have been defeated. In the lowest land, and they, after their defeat will be victorious. Within ten years. Allah's is the command in the former case and in the latter and in that day the believers will rejoice. In Allah's support to victory. He helps to victory whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Merciful. It is a promise of Allah. Allah fails not His promise, but most of mankind know not. They know only some appearance of the life of theworld, and are heedless of the Hereafter"
When Islam was still in it's infancy and it's followers were being severely persecuted, tortured, and killed by the pagan idol worshipers of Arabia (Quraish), there were two "Superpowers" near by. They were the Romans and the Persians. The pagans of Arabia used to like to see the Persians victorious against the Romans because the Persians were pagans like them. However, the Muslims liked to see the Romans victorious because they were "people of the book". About this time, the Romans suffered a resounding defeat to the Persians that seemed to signal the end of the Roman empire. The pagans of Arabia were ecstatic. They went out of their way to hold this defeat over the heads of every Muslim they would encounter. They said: "Just as the Christians in Rome have been crushed by the pagans of Persia, so shall we crush you". This was psychological warfare against the Muslims which they were adding to the physical torture they were subjecting the Muslims to. It was at this time that these verses were revealed to Mohammed (pbuh) consoling him and the Muslims in general that matters were not as they seemed, and that the Romans would come back and defeat the Persians within "Bidh'u" years. "Bidh'u" is an Arabic word that means "between three and nine". This prophesy did indeed come true and the Romans were once again victorious against the Persians, at the same time, the Muslims achieved their first strategic victory against the pagans of Arabia. Mr. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, in his commentary on the Qur'an narrates the following explanation of the above verses:
"The remarkable defeats of the Roman Empire under Heraclius and the straits to which it was reduced are reviewed in Appendix No. 6 (to follow this Sura). It was not merely isolated defeats; the Roman Empire lost most of its Asiatic territory and was hemmed in on all sides at its capital, Constantinople. The defeat, "in a land close by" must refer to Syria and Palestine, Jerusalem was lost in 614-15 A.D., shortly before this Sura was revealed. The Pagan Quraish of Makkah rejoiced at the overthrow of Rome by Persia. They were pro-Persian, and in their heart of hearts they hoped that the nascent movement of Islam, which at that time was, from a worldly point of view, very weak and helpless, would also collapse under their persecution. But they misread the true Signs of the times. They are told here that they would soon be disillusioned in both their calculations, and it actually so happened at the battle of Issus in 622 (the year of Hijrat) and in 624, when Heradius carried his campaign into the heart of Persia (see Appendix No: 6) and the Makkan Quraish were beaten off at Badr. Bidh'un in the text means a short period-a period of from three to nine years. The period between the loss of Jerusalem (614-15) by the Romans and their victory at Issus (622) was seven years, and that to the penetration of Persia by Heraclius was nine years. See last note. The battle of Badr (2 A.H. = 624 A.D.) was a real time of rejoicing for the Believers and a time of disillusionment for the arrogant Quraish, who thought that they could crush the whole movement of Islam in Madinah as they had tried to do in Makkah. but they were singly repulsed"
There were many other prophesies made by the Qur'an which, without exception, all came true. Another example would be that of Al-Israa(17):7.
However, we will leave it up to the interested student to research this topic in order to verify it's authenticity. There are many other points which could be brought up in this comparison, however, we leave it up to the reader to study Islam, Mohammad, and the Qur'an, and arrive at their own conclusion with regard to Mohammad (pbuh) having fulfilled all of the requirements of the coming"Paraclete".
In the West, people have developed the system of giving people abbreviated names. For instance, a man called William would be called "Bill" by his friends, Robert would be called "Bob", Joshua would be called "Josh"....etc. In a similar manner, Mohammed (pbuh) was known by two names:"Mohammad" and "Ahmed". I mention this to clarify the following verse:
"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, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me,whose name is Ahmed(the praised one). But when he came to them with clear proofs, they said: This is clearly magic"The Qur'an, Al-Saf(61):6
May Allah almighty guide us to see the obvious and be guided to the truth of his elect messenger Jesus (peace be upon him).
Misheal Al-KadhiAssalam alaikum Inshallah this will be the third in the continuing series of articles which will prove the claims of the Qur'an regarding the Bible. In the first two post, three very clear prophesies of Mohammed (pbuh) were presented from the Bible. We will continue with this first phase of the proof by presenting yet another prophesy of Mohammed (pbuh) in the Bible (total is now four prophesies of Mohammed pbuh in the Bible) the second phase of the proof will (by Allahs will) involve the refutal of the "trinity", "son of God", ...etc...etc. from the words for the Bible itself, stay tuned: Moses foretells of Mohammad's coming
Deuteronomy 18:18 "I (God) will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him". There are many verses in the Old Testament that predict the coming of Jesus (pbuh). This one, however, is not one of them. This can be clearly seen from the following four points: a) Like unto Moses Muslims believe in all of the previous prophets. They make no distinction between them, nor do they place one above the others in piety. However, they are all human, and as humans they differ from one another in their characteristics. Let us compare these characteristics: 1) Both Christians and Muslims agree that both Moses and Mohammad (pbut) had fathers and mothers. They both also believe that Jesus (pbuh) had only a mother and no father. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses. 2) Both Christians and Muslims believe in the miraculous birth of Jesus (pbuh), while Moses and Mohammad (pbut) were born naturally. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses. 3) Both Moses and Mohammad (pbut) married and begat children. Jesus (pbuh) never married nor had any offspring. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses. 4) Moses (pbuh) was accepted by the Jews and to this day, as a nation, they accept him as their prophet. Mohammad (pbuh) was accepted by his people, and as a nation, over one billion Muslims around the world accept him as the prophet of Allah. Jesus (pbuh), however, was rejected by his people (the Jews) as stated in the Christian's own Bible: "He (Jesus) came unto his own, but his own received him not" (John 1:11) Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses. 5) Both Moses and Mohammad (pbut) were kings on Earth in the sense that they had the ultimate power of government, the power to inflict capital punishment. When the Jews brought before Moses (pbuh) the Israelite who had been caught collecting firewood on the Sabbath, Moses had him stoned to death (Numbers 15:36). Mohammad (pbuh) had similar authority. When a woman came before him confessing (with no witnesses) to having committed adultery, he gave her a chance to consider the severity of her claim and the punishment she would receive. When she insisted, he ordered her stoned to death and ordered his companions to respect her for her ultimate and sincere repentance. Jesus (pbuh), however, explicitly refuted the claim that he had a kingdom on earth. When he was dragged before the Roman Governor Pontious Pilate with a charge of sedition he said: (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". Jesus (pbuh) would not resort to lying to save his skin. Thus, he had no earthly kingdom. Further, in John 8:1-7 we read the story of the woman who was taken in adultery by the Jews and brought before Jesus (pbuh). They were hoping to trap him by either having him contradict the laws of Moses (pbuh) by not stoning her, or by placing him in a bad position with the Roman empire by taking the law into his own hands and ordering her stoned. Jesus cleverly extracted himself from this predicament by commanding them: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". So the woman was set free. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses. 6) Both Moses and Mohammad (pbut) came with a new and comprehensive set of laws for their people. Jesus (pbuh), however, as witnessed by Matthew, claimed to have not introduced any new laws, but to have come to renew the law of Moses (pbuh) and to have neither added nor subtracted from it. In Matthew 5:17-18 we read: "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".
Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses. 7) Both Moses and Mohammad (pbut) died natural deaths. Jesus (pbuh), is claimed by the Christians to have died violently on the cross. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses. 8) Both Moses and Mohammad (pbut) lie buried in the ground. Jesus (pbuh), however, is claimed by the Christians to abide in heaven. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses. 9) Most Christians claim that Jesus (pbuh) is God. No Christian or Muslim, however, claims that Moses or Mohammad (pbut) was God. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses. 10) Both Moses and Mohammad (pbuh) began their prophetic missions at the age of forty. Jesus (pbuh) began at thirty. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses. 11) Christians claim that Jesus (pbuh) was resurrected after his death. Neither Muslims nor Christians claim that Moses or Mohammad was resurrected. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.
There are many additional points that could be mentioned but we will suffice with these for now. b) Can not be a Jew Well, is Mohammed (pbuh) the only prophet who is "Like unto Moses"?. For example, what about Jesus (pbuh)?. Well, we should then notice that Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew, and the Bible specifically denies that this awaited prophet will be a Jew. We are told that in Deuteronomy 34:10 Moses himself says: "And there arose NOT a prophet since in Israel LIKE unto Moses".
This awaited prophet, however, must be "LIKE unto thee (Moses)". So he will come from
OUTSIDE of Israel. c) Is from the BRETHREN of the Jews If this prophet can not be a Jew, then what is left?. In this verse, God speaks to Moses (pbuh) about the Jews as a racial entity. The awaited prophet is claimed to not be "from the Jews" or "from among themselves" but rather "from among their (the Jew's) brethren". Who are the brethren of the Jewish nation?. The Jews are the sons of Isaac, the son of Abraham. Isaac's older brother was Ishmael, the father of the Arabs. Thus, the brethren of the Jewish nation is the nation of the Arabs. This statement is further reinforced by the following definition of "Brethren" in the Hebrew Dictionary of the Bible: "personification of a group of tribes who were regarded as near kinsmen of the Israelites". d) Put my words in his mouth If we were to read the Qur'an we would find that it contains many verses stating
"I am your Lord, so worship Me" (Al-Anbia: 92, Al-Muminoon: 52),
"Verily, I am Allah" (Taha: 14, Al-Namil: 9, Al-Qasas: 30),
"I am thy Lord" (Taha: 19).
These verses are not preceded by "I heard God say.....", or "And God said....", or similar statements which would be the words of a man transmitting the words of God, rather, their form is that of the first person who speaks of himself. Neither Mohammad (pbuh) nor any Muslim ever claimed that Mohammad (pbuh) was God, therefore, Mohammad (pbuh) was speaking with his mouth the words of God. Similarly, we can find in the Qur'an more than four hundred verses of the form "Say (O Mohammad) : .......". In other words God almighty is putting His words into Mohammad's (pbuh) mouth and commanding him to speak them. Christians claim that the Bible has many "authors", and that while the "inspiration" is from God, still, the words are those of mortal men.
Dr. W Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible institute, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian evangelical missions in the world says on page 17 of his book "It is human, yet divine": "...Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men...." Another erudite Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, "The call of the minaret": ".....Not so the New testament....... There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history....." The Qur'an, however, is both the inspiration of God and the physical words of God. An example of this is a teacher who sends two students to teach what they have learned from him. The first is told to "teach them what I taught you". While the second is given a textbook written by this teacher and told to read verbatim from this book and say nothing of his own accord. The first will convey the thoughts of the teacher. The second will convey both his thoughts and his words. This matter becomes clearer when studying for example the personal greetings and salutations of Paul and his friends at the ends of Titus (3:15), 2 Timothy (4:19), 1 Thessalonians (5:26) ..... etc. These words are not the word of God but the personal greetings of Paul and his friends. There are many such examples to be found in the Bible.
The Qur'an contains no such verses from Mohammad (pbuh). The words of Mohammed (pbuh) are collected in a completely separate reference from the Qur'an called "The Sunnah". We notice from all this that even the Christians themselves do not claim that the Bible is the physical word of God, but his "inspiration" (his teachings) through the words of men. The Qur'an, however, is the physical word of God. GRAVE WARNINGS FOR ALL WHO DO NOT FOLLOW HIM So what shall we say to those who say: "Jesus has redeemed us. We have no need to follow any future prophets."?. After the above verse of Deuteronomy, God himself threatens severe retribution against all those who do not follow this awaited prophet. In Deuteronomy 18:19 we read:
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him". (or in some translations: "I will be the revenger") We would like the reader to remember that Mohammad (pbuh) never in his lifetime claimed that the Qur'an was his words, but the words of God. He further taught his followers to never recite any chapter or verse of the Qur'an without first prependingit with the words:
"In the name of God, the gracious, the merciful".
The Qur'an contains 114 Chapters. If we were to follow them on down we would find that the first chapter, second chapter, third chapter, and so on all begin with the words "In the name of God, the gracious, the merciful". On the other hand we will find most Christians will begin with "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost". So not only Mohammad (pbuh), but all Muslims in general recite the words of God in His name. Indeed, the Qur'an does even confirm this same warning of Deuteronomy:
"And whosoever seeks other than Islam as their religion it will not be accepted from him, and he shall be in the hereafter among those who have lost" (A'al Umran(3):85)
Assalam alaikum Inshallah this will be the forth in the continuing series of articles
which will prove the claims of the Qur'an regarding the Bible. In the first three post, four very clear prophesies of Mohammed (pbuh) were presented from the Bible. We will continue with this first phase of the proof by now branching off to a slightly different topic. The Jews and Christians claim that no prophet of God can come from OTHER than the Jews. This will be proven here to be a lie concocted by the Jews in order to promote themselves to the position of the "chosen children of
God". It will now be proven through the words of their own book how they have inserted lies and fabrications into their book in order to claim that prophet Abraham's first son (pbut) was excluded from God's covenant the upcoming second phase of the proof will (by Allah's will) involve the refutal of the"trinity", "son of God", ...etc...etc. from the words for the Bible itself, stay tuned:
1.8: Legitimacy of Hagar as Abraham's (pbuh) wife, Ishmael as his son, and the blessing of Ishmael:
Many Christians and Jews mistakenly believe that Abraham's descendants through Ishmael (Mohammad and his ancestors) were excluded from God's promise and covenant with Abraham (pbuh) because Ishmael's mother Hagar was not a legitimate wife of Abraham, thus, her son Ishmael (the father of the Arabs) was not a legitimate son of Abraham. Therefore, they conclude that Ishmael(pbuh) and his descendants were not included in God's covenant with the sons of Abraham (pbuh) and that this covenant was exclusive to Abraham's second son, Isaac, the father of the Jews.
In what follows we will disprove each of these claims, in addition to showing evidence of human tampering with the text of the Biblical verses.
The story of Ishmael according to the Bible is as follows: Abraham married Sarah (pbut). Sarah was a barren woman and bore him no children (Genesis 16:1). God then made a great promise to Abraham even before any children were born to him. Genesis 12:2-3:
"And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed".
Not long after, Sarah gave Abraham her handmaid, Hagar, to be his wife according to the legal Jewish custom of polygamous marriages (customary in the Bible among Israelites and even their
prophets).
Genesis 16:3: "And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.".
In Genesis 16 we are told that after Hagar (pbuh) became pregnant with Ishmael, Sarah (pbuh) felt that Hagar despised her, so she dealt with her harshly until she was forced to escape from this harsh
treatment "And when Sarai dealt harshly with her, she fled from her face" Genesis 16:6. The angel of God then appeared before Hagar and told her to return to Sarah and submit herself to her will
and that "the Lord has heard thy affliction" and would reward her with a son called "Ishmael" (God hears) and would multiply her seed exceedingly. Hagar willingly bowed to the command of her Lord and returned and submitted herself to Sarah. In A Dictionary of Biblical tradition in English literature, we read: "The Jewish Haggadah identifies Ishmael as one of the six men who were given a name by God before their birth (Ginzberg, LJ 1.239)".
When Abraham reached ninety-nine years of age, Ishmael was thirteen years old and remained the only son of Abraham. Now, God promises to establish his covenant with all of Abraham's "seed"
without exception:
"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.".
In Genesis 17:7-8.
God now informs Abraham that his covenant shall be given through circumcision, so Abraham immediately circumcises himself and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs (Genesis 17:23), thus establishing God's covenant with Ishmael.
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).
To this day, all Muslims practice circumcision. The "sign and seal" of the Abrahamic covenant.
We notice that God's covenant was promised to be with Abraham's "seed". But if we read Genesis 21:13 we will find that Ishmael is of Abraham's "seed":
"And also of the son of the bondwoman......he is thy seed".
The same arguments can be made for God's covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15:18
"the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates".
As we can see, this covenant was intended to be of the same generality as God's covenants with Noah (Genesis 9:8-17), and David (2 Samuel 7; 23:5). God's covenant was intended to be a covenant
with those who are obedient to Him and follow his command, not a covenant that makes a certain group of people genetically superior and closer to God even from before their birth, such that they are his "chosen children", and God's prophethood and message can only come from their lineage.
When Abraham reached one hundred years of age, God blessed him with a second son, Isaac(Genesis 21:5). Isaac was born to him through his first wife, Sarah. The Bible tells us that because of
Sarah's jealousy that Ishmael may inherit with her own son Isaac (Genesis 21:10), she had Abraham cast out Hagar and Ishmael and send them to the wilderness of "Paran" (genesis 21:21). We are told
that she was particularly angry with what she considered to be a mockery on the part of Ishmael towards her own son Isaac. This incident is alleged to have occurred after Isaac was weaned
(remember this) as narrated in Genesis 21:8.
Sarah now allegedly ordered Abraham to cast Hagar and Ishmael out, (apparently, in Abraham's tribe, children who mock their brothers and sisters are to be thrown out in the nearest desert along with their mothers) Abraham obeyed Sarah and cast the "bondwoman" and her son in the desert and was blessed by God who told him to "hearken unto her voice". Abraham gave Hagar provisions and water and put her child "Ishmael" upon her shoulder and left them in the wilderness of Beer Sheba in Southern Palestine. When they ran out of water, an angel appeared and conveyed to her the words of God:
"Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation".
God then showed her a well of water and they drank. Ishmael dwelt in the wilderness of "Paran" and begat twelve sons one of whom was called "Kedar".
The Muslims have a very similar narration of the same sequence of events in their Qur'an. However, in the Qur'an, the details differ from the narration of the Old Testament. Muslims are taught in the
Qur'an and the Sunnah that Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, and Ishmael (pbut) were, all five, very decent and pious people. Muslims believe that the prophet Abraham (pbuh) received a revelation from God to take Hagar and her BABY, Ishmael, to a barren desert in Northern Arabia (Paran), more specifically to the future location of Mecca, and to leave them there. When Abraham began to leave,
Hagar called out to him "where are you leaving us?".
After repeating the question three times she asked him "Did God command you to do this?".
Abraham answered "yes".
So Hagar said: "Then He will not forsake us".
When Hagar and her baby ran out of water she began to fear for her baby's life and took to running back and forth between the two hills of "Al-Safa" and "Al-Marwa" in search of water. During
this time God sent an angel who caused water to gush out of the earth for them. This became the water of the well of "Zamzam" which the pilgrims of Mecca drink from today. Once water was found in this place the Bedouins began to settle there and it became the city of Mecca (Makkah). Centuries later, Mohammad (pbuh), the prophet of Islam, was born to the descendants of Ishmael. The rights of hastening between the two hills of "Al-Safa" and "Al-Marwa" have been preserved in the Muslim's yearly pilgrimage to Mecca even to this day.
The major differences in these two narrations, the Biblical and the Qur'anic, are in the claim that Hagar was (originally) left in Beer Sheba and not Paran as stated by the Muslims, and that this occurred when Ishmael was not a baby, but a full grown teenager.
This Old Testament narration can be found to contain obvious modifications from the following analysis:
According to the Bible, Abraham was eighty six years old when Ishmael was born (Genesis 16:16). He was one hundred years old when Isaac was born (Genesis 21:5).
This makes Ishmael fourteen years older than Isaac.
The above expulsion of Ishmael and his mother is alleged to have occurred after Isaac was weaned (Genesis 21:8). Muslims wean their children after two years. Biblical scholars tell us that babies were weaned about the age of three. This makes Ishmael at least seventeen years old at the time of the alleged mockery and expulsion. The profile of Ishmael in Genesis 21:14-19 however, is one of a small baby and not that of a full grown teenager of seventeen years. Let us study it.
1) According to the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible which was compiled from manuscripts even more ancient than those of the King James Version of the Bible, the verse of Genesis 21:14 reads
"..putting it on her shoulder, along with the child".
Did Abraham put a seventeen year old boy on Hagar's shoulder??. It would be more logical for him to put Hagar on Ishmael's shoulder if he were, as claimed, seventeen years old at the time. So
Ishmael must have been a baby at the time.
2) In Genesis 21:15 we read
"and she cast the child under one of the shrubs"
Did Hagar "cast" a seventeen year old teenager under a shrub??. This too is consistent with a baby and not a full-grown teenager.
3) We read in Genesis 21:16 that Hagar sat far away from Ishmael so as not to see him die before her own eyes. Is this the profile of a full-grown teenager who should, more appropriately be worried about his mother or of a helpless baby??.
4) In Genesis 21:17 we read the angel's command to Hagar:
"Arise, lift up the lad".
Who would be more capable of lifting the other up, Hagar or her seventeen year old teenage son?. This too is the profile of a little baby.
5) Throughout this story we are drawn a picture of Hagar doing this, and Hagar doing that, and Hagar worrying, and Hagar weeping, and so on while Ishmael sits where he was "cast", under the shrub.
Would a full grown teenager of seventeen sit under a shrub and wait for his mother and himself to die while his mother looked for water for him, or would he have her sit in the shade while he went in search of water?.
6) Even the angel did not address both of them but only Hagar, the only one who would understand. Once again the profile of a baby and not a seventeen year old teenager.
7) Ishmael is always referred to as "the child" and "the lad" in the story. Do people usually refer to seventeen year old teenagers as "child" and "lad"?.
8) In Genesis 21:20 we read that after this incident,
"God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer".
Is this a profile of a fully developed teenager or a child who is growing up, learning, and developing?
The above analysis clearly exhibits evidence of human modification to the text of this story. The claim that Ishmael mocked Isaac and that this had anything to do with Hagar's journey is an obvious
fabrication since Isaac was not even born yet when this story occurred (Ishmael was still a baby). The reason for Hagar's journey was not Sarah's jealousy, Ishmael's mockery, or the racial superiority of
Sarah. It was only the command of God, pure and simple. In an effort to keep all prophets of God Israelites, even God himself is alleged to have submitted to, and even blessed the alleged jealous whims of Sarah. Further, if such elaborate additions to the story could be introduced into the text, then how much simpler to change the original journey to Paran to become a journey to Beer Sheba.
The Interpreter's Bible compares the texts of Genesis 21:14-19 with Genesis 16:1-16 and draws the following conclusion:
"The inclusion in Genesis of both stories so nearly alike and yet sufficiently different to be inconsistent, is one of the many instances of the reluctance of the compilers to sacrifice any of the traditions which has become established in Israel" (emphasis added).
As damaging and conclusive as this proof of the modification of the Old Testament is, still, it pales to insignificance before the infinitely more devastating proof of this same fact to be found in the previous post "proof that the torah of the Jews was notwritten by Moses".
Some people will now jump up and say: well then, the verses stating Abraham's age must be the ones which have been (unintentionally) modified. The problem with this is that first of all, these numbers were spelled out in letters and not written using numerals. Second, the transmitters of the Old Testament (the Jews) claim that every word and every letter was faithfully counted and preserved and thus, they can confidently claim that it would be impossible for unintentional errors to creep in.
If we are to believe that the most God-fearing people of the time of Abraham (pbuh) were in the habit of throwing children and their mothers out in the desert and cutting off their inheritance if they mocked their younger brothers and that this was justice, then either:
1) The ages are wrong, and Ishmael was not a teenager at the time but a small child, and thus, an unreasoning child and his mother are abandoned in a desert, and his inheritance cut off, because of
this innocent child's mockery of his younger brother, and because his step mother is jealous of his inheritance with her own son. Or,
2) The ages are correct, and Ishmael was a full-grown teenager when he and his mother were thrown out in the desert and this totally contradicts the language of the above verses.
We also notice that even in the New Revised Standard version of the Bible, Genesis 16:16 and 21:5 state the same ages mentioned above. Is this not proof of the Qur'an's claim that the previous books
of God were changed by the hands of the unscrupulous few?.
It now becomes evident that sometime after God sent down the Old Testament, someone decided that they did not want the Arab descendants of Ishmael to be included in God's covenant with Abraham. They wanted it exclusive to the Jews. Therefore, the Old Testament was "corrected" in order to show that God's intent was that His covenant be with the Jews only.
Now that we see that the original covenant of God was with all of the children of Abraham (pbuh) without exception, then we are left with another question: The Bible describes in great detail the
fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham through Isaac which was fulfilled in Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus (pbut). But what of his promise to Abraham through Ishmael?. God does not renege on his promises, so how was it fulfilled?. The Bible is, for the most part, silent about the promise to the Ishmaelites. Why?.
Because just as Jesus (pbuh), during the time of the Old Testament had not yet come and there were only prophesies of his coming containing unmistakable signs but no detailed stories of his life, in
the same manner, both the Old and New Testament contain unmistakable prophesies of Mohammad (pbuh) but no in-depth analyses and stories.
The Interpreter's Bible admits that the Ishmaelites and other descendants of Abraham were "somehow participating in the Abrahamic covenant" (page 616). The coming of Mohammad (pbuh), the descendant of Ishmael, is the fulfillment of this promise.
Some people will claim that even though Ishmael was Abraham's "seed", still, "seed" is a lesser designation than "son", and only Isaac was Abraham's "son". However, the Bible also bears witness to the fact that Ishmael was Abraham's "son": Genesis 17:23:
"And Abraham took Ishmael his son".
Not only that, but the Bible tells us that Ishmael remained the legitimate son of Abraham until even after his death, Genesis 25:8-9:
"Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah"
So was Ishmael a lesser "son" than Isaac because Isaac's mother was Abraham's wife while Hagar was not?. Once again, let us read the Bible: Genesis 16:3:
"And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid....and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife."
So the Bible also bears witness that Hagar was Abraham's legitimate wife.
Once the legitimacy of Hagar as Abraham's wife and Ishmael as his son has been established, now the objection of many becomes that Isaac was a better and truer son of Abraham because he was the son
of the free woman not a bondwoman. However, this claim is not supported by the law of the Jews. According to this law, the first born son was to have double portions of honor, and even inheritance,
and this right could not be affected by the status of his mother. Deuteronomy 21:15-17
"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved first born before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his".
In the same Interpreter's Bible we read the following comment on the above verses:
"However, the law of the first-born had ancient sanction, and so long as it was accepted justice demanded that mere favoritism not be allowed to deprive the eldest son of his rights"
Abraham was eighty six years old (Genesis 16:16) when Ishmael was born and was one hundred years old (Genesis 21:5), when he was blessed with a second son, Isaac (pbuh). So Isaac was fourteen years younger than his older brother Ishmael, the first-born son of Abraham.
It should further be noted here that a similar occurrence is narrated in the Old Testament regarding a slave girl named Ruth and a landowner named Boaz (Ruth, chapters 3 and 4). Ruth, a widowed
slave girl, was married to Boaz and gave him a son named Obed. Obed went on to become the founder of the royal line of Jews who, according to the Old and New Testament, were the ancestors of both David the King and Jesus Christ peace be upon them both (for example Matthew 1:5-16). Not only that, but according to the same Old Testament, Ruth was a Moabitess (Ruth 2:2). Moabite women, according to the Old Testament, were women used to lure Israelite men into immorality and the worship of the pagan god Baal.
So, if a slave woman of a nation of such ill repute among the Jews as the Moabites is given legitimacy among the Jews and can een go on to become the ancestor of their greatest prophets and leaders and
indeed Jesus Christ (pbuh) himself, then why is a whole branch of prophet Abraham's children cast off simply because their mother too was a slave girl?.
Jacob M. Myers, a professor at the Lutheran Theological Seminary and a contributor to Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, is a well recognized leading expert on the Old Testament. In his book
Invitation to The Old Testament (pp. 26) he states the following regarding the Nuzi laws of marriage of Abraham's (pbuh) time:
"Archaeological discoveries help us to fill in the details of the biblical narrative and to explain many of the otherwise obscure references and strange customs that were commonplace in Abraham's world and time...... A Nuzi marriage contract provides that a childless wife may take a woman of the country and marry her to her husband to obtain progeny But she may not drive out the offspring even if she later has children of her own. The child born of the handmaid has the same status as the one born to the wife. That is why, when Sarah wanted to drive out Hagar and Ishmael, it was quite objectionable to Abraham -because of the legal custom of the religion from which he came, he was reluctant to do so. It required a special divine dispensation to act contrary to that custom".
We have already seen how the "special divine dispensation" was a forgery.
Further, while Ishmael was the first begotten son of Abraham, we notice that Obed was the tenth grandson of Abraham (The Old and New Testament genealogies differ in the actual names). So, if Obed is given such legitimacy in the Old Testament as being a legitimate father in their most royal line, even though he is the son of a bondwoman, then Ishamel's claim to this legitimacy is much older
and more pronounced.
Once Ishmael has been proven to be a legitimate son of Abraham and not only equal to Isaac, but according to the law of the Jews, deserving of double the portion of honor and inheritance allotted to
Isaac, then the final objection becomes that Isaac was specifically chosen to be the child of promise. In A Dictionary of Biblical tradition in English literature, we read:
"St. Augustine, in De civitate Dei (15.2), equates Ishmael "born in the course of nature", with the
flesh and Isaac, "born in fulfillment of a promise" with the spirit. For Augustine, Ishmael exists outside the realm of God's grace; for this reason, and because of their enforced wanderings in the desert, he associates Ishmael and Hagar with Cain".
As we have already seen, God's covenant was with the "seed" of Abraham (pbuh), among who was Ishmael. Secondly, there are many verses which specifically single out Ishamel for God's blessing. After the birth of Ishmael and before the birth of Isaac, God repeats his promise to Abraham to bless all the earth through his progeny. Genesis 17:4:
"As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations".
Also, in Genesis 21:13,18 we read:
"And also of the son of the bondwoman (Hagar) will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.
......... I will make him a great nation".
So, not only is Ishmael a legitimate son of Abraham, but God almighty promised to bless Ishmael's descendants just as he would in the future promise to bless Isaac's descendants. Not only that, but God's covenant of circumcision with Abraham was fulfilled in Ishmael long before the birth of Isaac.
As will be demonstrated soon by Allahs will, the Bible has been modified extensively over the ages to the point that it now contains many hundreds of conflictions between it's verses. Many examples
have been presented. As seen there, thirty two Biblical scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating denominations bore witness to the "many" and "serious" errors contained in the current King James Bible. Even the original ancient manuscripts themselves contain many differences and conflictions. Whole passages show up in some "ancient manuscripts" while being completely missing from older ones. Even geographical locations are changed from one ancient copy to the next. All Bibles in existence today are the result of very extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single ancient copy being the definitive reference. Even at that, all Bibles in existence today still contain countless examples of very serious contradictions of founding Christian doctrine (to be demonstrated in future posts by Allahs will).
In the Interpreter's Bible we read:
"Many Israelites did not want a God who would be equally the God of all nations on the Earth. They
did not want one who would be impartial Holiness. They wanted a God who would be partial to them. So we read in Deuteronomy of the demands for a complete extermination of all non-Israelite people
of Palestine (Deuteronomy 7:2) and as to the carrying out of that injunction read the harsh sentences of Deuteronomy 20:10-17".
Is it possible, in light of the overwhelming evidence beginning to come to light of the modification of the Old Testament, that the transmitters of this book (Genesis) made certain modifications to favor their own people?. Sound impossible?. We have already seen the evidence.
Such verses as Genesis 17:21 and Genesis 21:21 do not exclude Ishmael from God's covenant as some claim. The example of this is one who says: "I love my parents" and then a few days later says "I
love my mother". Does this mean that he does not love his father?.
Since God had already consecrated his covenant between Abraham and his son Ishmael before the birth of Isaac, and Abraham had already circumsised Ishmael so that he might receive God's covenant, therefore, it was necessary for him to reaffirm that Isaac was not left out of this covenant even though it was established after the birth of Ishmael and before his own birth.
Many people point to the verse of Genesis 22:2 as proof that Isaac was the only legitimate son of Abraham. We read:
"And he (God) said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of".
What is going on here?. On the one hand we have verses such as Genesis 16:15, Genesis 17:23, Genesis 17:25, Genesis 17:26, and Genesis 25:9...etc. which clearly confirm the fact that not only was
Ishmael the first born son of Abraham and a legitimate son, but he remained so until the day Abraham died and was buried. On the other hand we have Genesis 22:2 which claims that Isaac, Abraham's second son is the only son of Abraham.
To understand this we need to go back to the Qur'anic version of this story. In the Qur'an we are told that Abraham was deprived children until his old age whereupon he was given Ishmael, his first
born son. Up until this point the Qur'an and the Old Testament are in agreement. It stands to reason that after having been deprived an heir for so long Abraham would become extremely attached to his
only begotten son Ishmael. For all he knew then he very likely might not be blessed with any more children before his death. We are now told in the Qur'an that Allah (God) almighty decided to test
Abraham's faith. He therefore decided to set up a test for Abraham in the one thing which he held most dear to his heart in all of this world: His only son. God almighty showed Abraham a vision
wherein he sacrificed his only son Ishmael to God. Upon awakening, Abraham realized that this was no regular dream but a vision and command from God almighty. When Ishmael reached the age of
striving, Abraham went to him and asked his opinion on this matter. This was not an attempt by Abraham to escape the command of God, but only an attempt to better prepare his son. Ishmael replied to his father:
"O my father, Do as you are commanded. You shall by Allah's will find me to be among the patient".
We are told that the devil then came to Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael in turn trying to convince each one to disobey the command of Allah. Each one in turn did not respond to him and cast stones at
him till they drove him away. This act is also preserved to this day in the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca in the symbolic act of stoning the three pillars called the "jamarat".
Abraham took his son Ishmael and placed him on the ground facing down so that he would not have to look at him. Just when he was about to sacrifice Ishmael God sent an angel to Abraham to stop
him and to provide him with a ram as an alternate sacrifice in place of his son as a reward for his sincere intentions. He then further rewarded Abraham with Isaac, a great and pious prophet as a second son. This story can be found in the Qur'an in Al-Safat(37): 100-113:
Abraham prayed: "My Lord! grant me (a son) of the righteous. So We gave him tidings of a gentle son(Ishmael). And when he was old enough to strive with him, he said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice you. So look, what do you think? He said: O my father! Do that which you are commanded. Allah willing, you shall find me of the steadfast. Then, when they had both surrendered (to Allah), and he had placed him upon his forehead, We called unto him: O Abraham: You have (already) fulfilled the vision. Lo! thus do We reward the good. Lo! that verily was a clear test. Then We ransomed him with a tremendous victim. And We left for him among the later folk (the salutation):'Peace be unto Abraham!' Thus do We reward the good. Lo! he is one of Our believing slaves. And We gave him tidings of the birth of Isaac, a Prophet of the righteous. And We blessed him and Isaac. And of their seed are some who do good, and some who plainly wrong themselves.
And We verily gave grace unto Moses and Aaron, And saved them and their people from the great distress, And helped them so that they became the victors. And We gave them the clear Scripture And showed them the right path. And We left for them, among the later folk (the salutation): 'Peace be unto Moses and Aaron!' Lo! thus do We reward the good. Lo! they are two of our believing slaves."
We notice that the major difference in the Qur'anic verses the Biblical versions is that the Qur'an claims that it was Ishmael (The father of the Arabs) who was to be sacrificed, while the Old
Testament claims that Isaac (The father of the Jews) was the one to be sacrificed. However, if we study the verse of Genesis 22:2 we will find the words "thy son, thine only son". Isaac was never Abraham's only son. As we have seen, Ishmael was born before Isaac and remained (according to the testimony of the Bible) the legitimate son of Abraham until AFTER his death. As we have already proven, the story of God's command to cast out Ishmael and his mother is a fabrication. The only son of Abraham who was ever Abraham's "only" son was Ishmael. This was during the fourteen year period after the birth of Ishmael but before the birth of Isaac. Notice how by changing this one word from "Ishmael" to "Isaac" an entire branch of Abraham's descendants (The Arabs) are conveniently excluded from God's covenant and it becomes exclusive to the Jews?. Once Ishmael is reinstated as the one mentioned in Genesis 22:2 then the stories in the Bible begin to make sense once again.
In Encyclopedia Judica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading "Ishmael", we read:
"It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who was bound, but they concealed this out of jealousy".
May Allah almighty guide us to see the obvious and beguided to the truth of his elect messenger Jesus (peace be upon him).
Misheal Al-Kadhi
This is part 5 of the ongoing series which will by Allah's will prove all of the claims of the Qur'an regarding teh Bible. This will include many prophesies of Mohammed (pbuh) in the Bible, and proofof how a small segment of the unscrupulous few managed to modifythe religion of God for their personal gain. Donald E. Blais <blais@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote: Neither Christian nor secular scholars consider the purported Gospel of Barnabas to be historically authentic... Encyclopedia Americana, 1990 BARNABAS, [...]
A number of works have been attributed to St. Barnabas:
the Acts of Barnabas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel of Barnabas. In addition, Tertullian attributed to him the Epistle to the Hebrews but this is more a guess than a tradition. [...] There was also a Gospel of Barnabas, referred to by several ancient authors, especially in the "Decree of Gelasius" (c. 500 A.D.); but there is no means of knowing what its contents or character were. However, there is in existence a long Italian manuscript under this title, written from the Muslim standpoint and containing a strong element of Gnosticism. It was edited in 1907 by Lonsdale and Laura (M. Roberts) Ragg, who held it to be the work of an apostate from Christianity, sometime between the 13th and 16th century. Like most of the patristic and medieval apocrypha, the work is highly imaginative, a work of fiction rather than of historical tradition, but it has a strongly marked ethical emphasis. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th ed.) has an entry for the Letter of Barnabas [Epistle] but no mention of the Gospel of Barnabas. Donald E. Blais Internet: blais@utexas.edu UTexas Computation Center UUCP: uunet!cs.utexas.edu!blais Austin, TX 78712 Phone: +1 512-471-6387 +1 512-471-3241 Mr. Donald Blais Thank your for your comments regarding the "Gospel of Barnabas", however, I ask you to consider the following:
It seems amazing to me how people allow others to tell them what is and isn't a genuine Gospel without asking for any proof whatsoever. The vast majority of Christian scholars today (except for a minority of the most adamant of conservatives) readily acknowledge today that the *MAJORITY* of the books f the Bible were not written by the claimed authors. "John" was not written by the apostle John, "Matthew" was not written by Matthew...etc. The supporting evidence of their claims is readily available to us in our own Bibles. For example, these Christian scholars point to the verse of Matthew 9:9 as one of the countless pieces of internal evidence which prove this fact. We read: "...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus)".
It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that neither Jesus (pbuh) nor his apostle Matthew wrote this. Right at this moment, I could probably give you at least ten more pages of such proof for the rest of the books of the Bible, however, I am reserving this information for a future post in order that the current sequence of articles may better complement each other and build upon each other. Stay tuned for more (by Allah's will). Most Christians will tell you that the books of the current Bible are "inspired" books. That God "inspired" them to men and they wrote them. They tell you that all other books are "apocryphal" lies. They will also apply this sweeping judgment to the "Gospel of Barnabas" too without studying either of the two claims. All biblical "versions" of the Bible prior to revised version of 1881 were dependent upon the "ANCIENT COPIES" (those dating between five to six hundred years after Jesus). The revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to the "MOST ancient copies" which date fully three to four hundred years after Christ. This RSV Bible was compiled by THIRTY TWO Biblical scholars of the highest eminence backed by FIFTY cooperating denomination. In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the following reason for their complete rehash of the Bible:
"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.".
They go on to note: "...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"(emphasis added) The Jehovah's witnesses in their "AWAKE" Magazine dated 8th September 1957 published the following headline:
"50,000 errors in the Bible" wherein they say "..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible....errors which have crept into the Bible text....50,000 such serious errors.......".
After all of this, however, they go on to say: "...as a whole the Bible is accurate". If we were to obtain a copy of the RSV Bible by Collins, we would find that the authors say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown". If they knew it to be the word of God they would have undoubtedly attributed it to him. Rather, they have chosen to honestly say "Author....Unknown". But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God??. How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"?. Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others".
Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon".
Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel". and on and on. As I said, I could go on and on and on........ So how were the current selection of books recognized to be truly "inspired"?. Did Jesus (pbuh) hand them to his followers and command them to follow them?. Did the apostles do so?. Did their children do so?. Before answering please research your own Christian literature. Go to your local Collage library and look it up. I am sure you will be quite amazed at what you will find. Let me give you a small sample of how the "inspired" books of the Bible were incorporated into the Christian "canon" of the Bible: During the time of the apostles and their followers for about a period of three hundred years, the "Bible" as we currently know it did not exist. Jesus (pbuh), the apostles, and their children for many generations new nothing of this "Bible". During this time period, people used to band around a certain apostle or one of their followers and would usually have with them a "Gospel" written by this apostle. This would be their "Bible" to live and die with. In the city of Nicaea (modern: Iznik, Turkey), in the year 325 AD, a great conference of Christian theologians and religious scholars was convened under the order of the Emperor Constantine to examine and define the status of these countless Christian Gospels. After thorough investigation it was decided that the Epistle of Jude was genuine and believable. The rest of these books were declared doubtful. This was explicitly mentioned by Saint Jerome in his introduction to his book. St. Jerome, of course, was a Christian scholar and a great philosopher. He was born in 340 A.D. He translated the Bible into Latin. He was a famous bibliographer and wrote many books on the Bible. Before the year 325 AD., it is known that the Gospel of Barnabas (which confirms most of the claims of the Qur'an) was accepted as canonical in the churches of Alexandria. It is known to have been circulated in the first two centuries after Christ (pbuh) from the writings of Iraneus (130-200AD). After this council, four Gospels were selected out of a minimum of three hundred available and the rest, including the Gospel of Barnabas, were ordered utterly destroyed. All Gospels written in Hebrew were also ordered completely destroyed. In the year 364 AD, another council was held in Liodicia for the same purpose. This conference of Christian scholars and theologians not only confirmed the decision of the council of Nicaea regarding the authenticity of the Epistle of Jude but also declared that the following six books must also be added to the list of genuine and believable books: The Book of Esther, The Epistle Of James, The Second Epistle of Peter, The Second and Third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. This conference pronounced their decision to the public. The book of Revelations, however, remained out of the list of the acknowledged books in both the councils. In 397 another great conference was held called the Council of Carthage. Augustine, the great Christian scholar, was among the one hundred and twenty six learned participants. The members of this council confirmed the decisions of the two previous Councils and also added the following books to the list of the divine books: The Book of the Songs of Solomon, The Book of Tobit, The Book of Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, and The First and Second Books of Maccabees. At the same time the members of this council decided that the book of Baruch was a part of the book of Jeremiah because Baruch was the deputy of Jeremiah. Therefore they did not include the name of this book separately in the list. Three more conferences were held after this in Trullo, Florence and finally Trent (1545-63). The members of these meetings confirmed the decision of the Council of Carthage. The last two councils, however, wrote the name of the book of Baruch separately. After these councils nearly all the books which had previously been doubtful among Christians were now included in the list of acknowledged books. The status of these books remained unchanged until the Protestant Reformation. The Protestants repudiated the decisions of the councils and declared that there are only 66 truly "inspired" books of God, and not 73 as claimed by the Catholics. The following books were to be rejected: The Book of Baruch, The Book of Tobit, The Letter of Jude, The Song of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, The First and Second Books of Maccabees.
They excluded these books from the list of acknowledged books. The Protestants also rejected the decision of their forbears regarding some chapters of the book of Esther. This book consists of 16 chapters. They decided that the first nine chapters and three verses from chapter 10 were to be rejected. They based their decision on the following six reasons: 1 These works were considered to be false even in the original Hebrew and Chaldaean languages which were no longer available. 2 The Jews did not acknowledge them as revealed books. 3 All the Christians have not acknowledged them as believable. 4 Jerome said that these books were not reliable and were insufficient to prove and support the doctrines of the faith. 5 Klaus has openly said that these books were recited but not in every place. 6 Eusebius specifically said in chapter 22 of his fourth book that these books have been tampered with, and changed. In particular the Second Book of Maccabees. It now becomes apparent that books which had been lost in the original and which only existed in translation were erroneously acknowledged by thousands of theologians as divine revelation. This state of affairs leads a non-Christian reader to distrust the unanimous decisions of Christian scholars of both the Catholic and the Protestant persuasions. The followers of Catholic faith still believe in these books in blind pursuance of their forebears. It is a prerequisite of believing in a certain book as divinely revealed that it is proved through infallible arguments that the book in question was revealed through a prophet and that it has been conveyed to us precisely in the same order without any change through an uninterrupted chain of narrators. It is not at all sufficient to attribute a book to a certain prophet on the basis of suppositions and conjectures. Unsupported assertions made by one or a few sects of people should not be, and cannot be, accepted in this connection. We have already seen how Catholic and Protestant scholars differ on the question of the authenticity of some of these books. There are yet more books of the Bible which have been rejected by Christians. They include the Book of Revelation, the Book of Genesis, the Book of Ascension, the Book of Mysteries, the Book of Testament and the Book of Confession which are all ascribed to the Prophet Moses. Similarly a fourth Book of Ezra is claimed to be from the Prophet Ezra and a book concerning Isaiah's ascension and revelation are ascribed to him. In addition to the known book of Jeremiah, there is another book attributed to him. There are numerous sayings which are claimed to be from the Prophet Habakkuk. There are many songs which are said to be from the Prophet Solomon. There are more than 70 books, other than the present ones, of the new Testament, which are ascribed to Jesus, Mary, the apostles, and their disciples. The Christians of this age have claimed that these books are false and are forgeries. The Greek Church, Catholic church and the Protestant Church are unanimous on this point. Similarly the Greek Church claims that the third book of Ezra is a part of the Old Testament and believes it to have been written by the Prophet Ezra while the Protestant and Catholic Churches have declared it false and fabricated. Groliers encyclopedia says under the heading "New Testament, canon":
"The process by which the canon of the New Testament was formed began in the 2nd century, probably with a collection of ten letters of Paul. Toward the end of that century, Irenaeus argued for the unique authority of the portion of the Canon called the Gospels. Acceptance of the other books came gradually. The church in Egypt used more than the present 27 books, and the Syriac-speaking churches fewer. The question of an official canon became urgent during the 4th century. It was mainly through the influence of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and because Jerome included the 27 books in his Latin version of the Bible called the Vulgate, that the present canon came to be accepted.". As mentioned above, even when a book is claimed to be truly "inspired" we still find that the Church cannot say with 100% assuredness WHO wrote this "inspired" book. As mentioned there, the authors of the RSV Bible by Collins say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown", the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others".
Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon".
Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel".
and on and on. Is this how a truly unbiased mind defines "inspired by God"?. You be the judge. Let us now talk about the "Gospel of Barnabas": The choice of the present four Gospels (including the writings of St. Paul who is credited with single-handedly writing the majority of the books of the New Testament) was imposed in the conference of Nicea 325 A.D. under the auspices of the Pagan Emperor Constantine for political reasons. Literally hundreds of gospels and religious writings were considered "Apocrypha" (which literally means "hidden from the people" and not "doubtful" as some people claim) and destroyed. Some of these were written by disciples of Jesus (pbuh), and not disciples of disciples who had never met Jesus (pbuh), such as Paul. If they were not more authentic than the current selection then they were at least of equal authenticity. Some of these are still available, such as the "Gospel of Barnabas" and the "Shepherd of Hermas" which agree with the Qur'an and even mention Mohammad (pbuh) by name. Modern discoveries such as the discovery of the dead sea scrolls (Qumran scrolls) have only confirmed the authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas. There are striking similarities between the two. If the Gospel of Barnabas were, as alleged, a forgery, then it would not be so rich in the Essenic terminology of Jesus' time. The Greek gospels are very poor in this regard. Since the dead sea scrolls were not discovered until 1947, therefore, no forger prior to the discovery and translation of the scrolls could have known Essenic terminology in such abundance when virtually nothing was known about them. The Greek gospels in the current Bible are compiled from "ancient manuscripts" dating fully three and four hundred years after the time of Jesus (pbuh). There is not even a single "ancient copy" available today written in the same language the alleged authors spoke in. The Dead sea scrolls, however, coincide historically with the time of John the Baptist. They were discovered alongside the most ancient copy of the Old Testament available today. The reason the Gospel of Barnabas is rejected owes more to matters of faith than to it's historical authenticity. This is because in it Jesus (pbuh) explicitly refutes the claim that he is God. This is considered heresy, and thus, the Gospel of Barnabas is labeled "a forgery". A very insightful study into the similarities between these two works and the authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas can be found in the book "The dead sea scrolls, the Gospel of Barnabas, and the New Testament" By M.A. Yusseff (ISBN 0 89259 061 0). In an effort to defend the teachings of the current Greek gospels, Mr. F.F. Bruce has the following to say in his book "The New Testament documents. Are they reliable?":
"It is worth mentioning here that striking affinities of thought and language have been recognized between the Gospel and the Qumran texts. These affinities must not be exaggerated; the Qumran literature comes no where near presenting us with such a figure as the Jesus of this Gospel (John)". Any Christian scholar of Christian history will readily confirm that after the famous council of Nicea (325 AD), the church of St. Paul (The Roman Catholic Church) selected out of the over three hundred Gospels in their possession the four that most closely conformed to their doctrines. All others, including the Gospel of Barnabas, were ordered completely destroyed. They also ruled that all Gospels written in Hebrew were to be destroyed. An edict was issued that anyone found in possession of an unauthorized Gospel would be put to death. Countless numbers of Christians were then systematically killed as heretics and burned at the stake if they maintained their belief in the divine Unity of God and did not conform to the innovative teachings of Paul. It is well known that this practice continued until at least the year 1616 AD. Well then, how did the Gospel of Barnabas reach us?. It is well known and recorded that Pope Damasus (304-384 AD.) issued a decree that the Gospel of Barnabas should not be read. This decree was supported by Gelasus, Bishop of Caesaria who died in 395 AD. Pope Demasus, however, did secure a personal copy of the Gospel of Barnabas for himself in 383 AD. and placed it in his private library. Many decrees make mention of the Gospel of Barnabas, such as the decree of the Western churches in 382AD, Pope Innocent in 465A.D., the Glasian Decree of 496A.D., Pope Hormisdas, and it is mentioned in the Stichometry of Niceophorus. There are many others who made note of this Gospel throughout history or obtained their own copies. Among the first Christians was a man named Iranaeus (130-200 AD) who was among the followers of the teachings of the apostles and, like the first Christians before him, a believer in the Divine unity and not in the Pauline Trinity. He was murdered in 200AD for his outspokenness against the Pauline doctrine. Iranaeus quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in his writings. In the sixteenth century AD. a close friend of Pope Sextus (1589-1590), called Fra Marino, became extremely interested in the writings of Iranaeus. One day he was invited to visit the Pope and lunch with him. After eating with him, the Pope became drowsy and fell asleep. Father Marino took to browsing through the various books and manuscripts in the private library of Pope Sextus and happened upon an Italian translation of the Gospel of Barnabas. Father Marino concealed it in his sleeve and left the Vatican with it. This manuscript passed through many hands until it ended up in Amsterdam. In 1713 J.E. Cramer, the councilor of the King of Prussia presented it to the famous connoisseur of books, Prince Eugene of Savoy. In 1738 it was incorporated into the Hofbibliothek in Vienna where it now rests. Only the popularity of this copy of the Gospel of Barnabas saved it from the fate of most other copies. Most copies of the Gospel of Barnabas had a tendency of mysteriously disappearing into oblivion. This was the case with a Spanish copy which mysteriously disappeared from the collage library in England around the same time period as well as all but two copies of the English translation of this Gospel which was published in 1907 by Mr. and Mrs. Ragg. One copy is housed in the library of Congress in Washington. The other is located in the British museum. So, the Gospel of Barnabas was discovered hidden away of all places *in the Christian's own Vatican*. The Popes themselves new of it's existence but were hiding it ("apocrypha"= "hidden from the masses"). To this day it has never left the hands of the Christians. It remains in the Christian Hofbibliothek in Vienna for all to see. Never has it fallen into the hands of Muslims: 1) Why then does it confirm practically every single one of the claims of the Qur'an?. 2) Why does it confirm that Jesus (pbuh) is not God nor his son, as the Qur'an does?. 3) Why does it prophesise that mankind will call Jesus (pbuh) the "Son of God" and severely caution them from doing so, as the Qur'an says?. 4) Why does it confirm that Jesus (pbuh) was not killed by the Jews but raised by God, as the Qur'an says?. 5) Why does it prophesise the coming of a new prophet after Jesus (pbuh)?. Why does it claim that the coming prophet will come from the descendants of Ishmael(the Arabs) and not Isaac(the Jews)?. 6) Why does it claim that the Jews had been changing their book from ancient times, as the Qur'an says?. 7) Why does it have the apostle Barnabas himself claiming that Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) had corrupted the religion of Jesus (pbuh) by nullifying the commandments, and by calling Jesus (pbuh) the "son of God", and that he (Paul) was leading the masses astray from the true religion of God?. Why does it confirm virtually every single claim of the Qur'an even though it was written long before the coming of Mohammed (pbuh) and has remained in the possession of the Church since?. Is it all just an amazing coincidence?. Why has the Vatican gone to such lengths to hide it over thecenturies?. The Gospel of Barnabas is not the only Gospel which confirms these matters. There is also "The Shepherd of Hermas". Once again it confirms the teachings of the Qur'an, and once again, it was destroyed and hidden from the masses. Christian scholars call the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the "Synoptic" (One eyed) Gospels. This is because they all seem to have had access to a common source document they were working from when they wrote their Gospels (unlike the "Gospel of John" which exhibits completely different characteristics from theses three). This source document is called 'Q'. Now they are beginning to recognize that the alleged authors are not the true authors (see future posts). Similarly, countless verses of the Gospel of John, as well as other historical discrepancies, also go to show that John did not write the Gospel of John. Some scholars are now beginning to suspect that 'Q' may indeed be the Gospel of Barnabas. It is much larger than the others, by all measures it is an authentic Gospel (see chapter 11), and it contains all of the stories contained in these three Gospels without the contradictions found therein.
Finally, I would like to thank you Mr. Blais for your thoughts and foryour giving me the opportunity to exhibit these matters.SincerelyMisheal Al-Kadhi___________________________maalkadh@mailbox.syr.edu
This will by Allah's will be the sixth in a series of articles which will prove all of the claims of the Qur'an regarding the Bible and exhibit how a small band of unscrupulous men managed to change the word of Allah after the departure of Jesus (peace be upon him) in addition to showing the traces of the original message of Jesus (pbuh) still remain to this day, such as the prophesies of Mohammed (pbuh) in the Bible which have been presented in the previous five parts.
May Allah almighty guide us all to His true message.
Dear Mr. Katz
I don't think I did justice to your question about the 50,000 errors. First of all, please notice that what you are quotingis a preamble to a discussion. It claims that this will (in this series of articles) be proven. However, if you can not wait, I will respect your request and send you this very smallsampling for you further study. Please forgive it's "shortness".
While reading this list please bear in mind that even the preservers of the very ancient Old Testament (the Jews) claim that EVERY WORD AND EVERY LETTER of their books was painstakingly COUNTED and RECORDED so that even scribal error would be physical impossibility. I am willing to stand by the Qur'an and every word and every syllable. I am also willing to stand by theintended meanings of the verses of the Qur'an and not attempt to "interpret" them to have "hidden" meanings totally in oposition to the obvious meanings by Allah's will.
Please do not take this as a confrontation. This was not my intent. The title of the articles was chosen in order to draw attention to them and not to be disrespectful. My goal is to show you some of what your own scholars have written quite extensively about today. My goal is not to be disresrectful of your beliefs or knowledge, but only to show that there is such a thing as a person who would dare to change the word of God for his personal gain. The details of these claims can be found in abundance in your own collage library.
May God almighty guide both of us to His true message and to not follow the words of mankind.
Misheal Al-Kadhi
Please bear in mind that the following is only a small sampling of the contradictions your own scholars now recognise:
1Acts 9:26-29 and Acts 26:19-21(Paul is saved)Galatians 1:15-22(Was he really?)2Acts 9:7(heard voice, saw no man)Acts 22:9(no voice, saw light)3Matt.10:2-4,Mark3:16-19(Jesus apostles' names, the twelfth is Lebbeus who's surname was Thaddeus)Luke 6:14-16 (apostles' names now different, the twelfth is Judas the brother of James)4Matthew 27:5 (Judas hangs himself)Acts 1:18(Judas falls headlong,his bowels gush)5Matthew 11:13-14,17:13(Elias is John the Baptist)John 1:21(Elias is not John the Baptist)6Luke 3:23-31+Romans 1:3("according to the flesh" 41 men between Jesus and David)Matthew 1:6-16 + Romans 1:3 ("according to the flesh" 26 men between Jesus and David)7Matthew 21:12-18(temple before passing fig tree)Mark 11:12-15 (temple After passing fig tree)8Mark 15:25 (crucified by third hour)John 19:14 (not crucified by sixth hour)9Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26, Mark 15:21 (Simon carries the cross)John 19:17 (Jesus carries the cross)10Mark 15:23 (gave wine with myrrh to drink)Matthew27:34(Gave vinegar with gall to drink)11Matthew 1:16(Jesus son of Joseph son of Jacob)Luke 3:23(Jesus son of Joseph son of Heli)121 Corinthians 15:5(Jesus seen by twelve)Matthew 28:16(Jesus seen by eleven)131 Chronicles 7:6(Three sons), 1Chronicles 8:1 (Five sons),
Genesis 46:21 (ten sons) (How many sons did Benjamin have and what are their names?)142 Samuel 24:1(The Lord moved David)1 Chronicles 21:1(The Devil moved David)15Matthew 20:20-21 (The mother of the Zaebedee's sons makes the request)Mark 10:35-37 (The Zebedee's sons make the request themselves)16John 20:1, Matthew 28:1, Luke 24:10, Mark 16:1(four different accounts of who visited the grave of Jesus)17John 20:12, Matthew 28:2, Luke 24:3, Mark 16:5(four different accounts of who saw what at Jesus' grave)18Luke 24:9-10 (three women + speak)Mark 16:1-8(three different women + afraid)19John 5:31(my witness is not true)John 8:14(My record is true)20Matthew 27:11-14 (Jesus said "Thou sayest" and NOTHING ELSE)John 18:33-38 (Jesus says many things and answers many questions in detail)21Matthew 8:5: The centurion came in person.Luke 7:3 The centurion sent elders of the Jews22Matthew 26:7 Poured ointment on Jesus' head.John 12:3 Poured ointment on Jesus' feet.23Romans 5:12 Adam alone was responsible for the "initial sin".1 Timothy 2:14 Eve alone, and not Adam, was responsible for the "initial sin"24Matthew 28:7, 10, 16:20, Mark 16:7. Jesus (pbuh) appeared in Galilee.
But Acts 1:4 commands them not to leave JerusalemLuke 24:13-52, Acts 1:1-12. Jesus (pbuh) appeared in Jerusalem.25Matthew 2 (" Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Mary (pbuh) and Joseph took him to Egypt till Harod died. Then they went to Nazareth").Luke 2("Jesus was born in Bethleham. After Mary (pbuh) delivered Jesus "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem". After the sacrifice "they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth". His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. When he was twelve years old, he stayed behind for three days without the knowledge of his mother.26Mark 11 (Jesus, spoke with the elders of the Jews on the third day after his arrival in Jerusalem)Matthew 21 (Jesus, spoke with the elders of the Jews on the second day after his arrival)27Matthew 8 (Jesus healed a leper, then the servant of the centurion, then healed Simon's wife's mother)Mark 4,5,7 (healed Simon's wife's mother, then a the leper, then the servant of the centurion)28Matthew 20:30-34 (Jesus healed two blind men after leaving Jericho)Mark 10:46-52 (Jesus healed one blind man called Bartimaeus after leaving Jericho)29Matthew 9:18 (the ruler came and said "My daughter is even now dead")Mark 5:22-23 (the ruler said his daughter is near death. After they came near his house, someone came out and told him that his daughter had died while he was away)30Matthew 8:28 (When Jesus came into the country of the Gergesenes, he met two men possessed with devils comming out of the tombs)Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 (When Jesus came into the country of the Gadarenes., he met one man possessed with devils comming out of the tombs)31Matthew 21:2 ("Jesus sent two disciples "Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me").Mark 11:2 (Jesus said: "...ye shall find a colt tied,...; loose him, and bring him"). Luke 19:30 (Jesus said "....ye shall find a colt tied, ...: loose him, and bring him hither").John 12:14-15 ("And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt")Did Jesus send anyone? What, and how many did they bring? Or did he find it/them by himself?32Mark 1, Matthew 4, John 1 (Two different narrations of the conversion of the disciples)Mark/Matthew As he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew. They followed him. And when he had gone a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, and they followed him too. All of them were mending their nets when they met Jesus.John: On the banks of the Jordan, John the Baptist pointed out Jesus to two of his disciples, and they followed Jesus. One of the two which heard John speak, and followed Jesus, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. Andrew found his brother Simon, and brought him to Jesus. Jesus named him Cephas. The next day Jesus went into Galilee, and found Philip. Philip then found Nathanael. At no time was anyone mending nets.33Matthew 3:13-16 (Jesus came to John the Baptist to be baptized by him. John recognized Jesus and forbade him, saying, "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?". He then baptized Jesus. Once Jesus was baptized, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him)........John recognized Jesus before the dove descended.John 1:32-34 ("And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God" .........Only after the dove descended did John recognize Jesus.Also: in Matthew 11:2-3 "Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"
The first passage states that John knew Jesus before the dove descended. The second claims that he didn't until it descended. The third takes a middle ground)34Mark 7:32-35 (After departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, Jesus came unto the sea of Galilee. One man that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech was brought before Jesus. Jesus healed him).Matthew 15:29-31 (Jesus departed and came to the sea of Galilee. "And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them: Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel").35John 13:21-27 ("Verily, verily, I (Jesus) say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly")Matthew 26:21-25 ("he (Jesus) said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said").36Matthew 27:38-44, Mark 15:32 (BOTH thieves mocked Jesus).Luke 23:39-43 (ONE of the thieves mocked Jesus while the other REBUKED him and asked Jesus to remember him in heaven, Jesus promised him that he would be with him in heaven)37Acts 1:18 (Judas purchased a field with the pieces of silver).Matthew 27:6-7(The chief priests purchased a field with the pieces of silver)38Matthew 4:5-8 (The devil took Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, then to a high mountain.)Luke 4:5-7 (The devil took Jesus up into a high mountain, then to the pinnacle of the temple)39John 2:18-19 ("Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.")Matthew 26:60-61 ("At the last came two false witnesses,And said, This fellow (Jesus) said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.". How can they be false witnesses if Jesus did actually say it?)40Matthew 15:22 (The woman who cried for her daughter was from Canaan)Mark 7 (The woman who cried for her daughter was a Greek and a Syrophenician by tribe)41Matthew 26:48-50 (Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him. And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him)John 18-3-12 (Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none. Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him)42Romans 3:28 ("Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law".)James 2:14,20 ("What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? .......But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?".)43Romans 4:2, Romans 5:12, Romans 5:14, 1Corintians 15:20 (Paul speaks and claims that all mankind inherited the sin of their father Adam)Ezekiel 18:20, Deuteronomy 24:16, Jeremiah 31:29-30, Ezekiel 18:1-9(God speaks and emphatically declares that no human will be held accountable for their father's sin. No human can inherit sin)442 Samuel 8:4(7 hundred horsemen)1 Chronicles 18:4(7 thousand horsemen)451 Chronicles 21:12(Three years famine) 2 Samuel 24:13(Seven years famine)46Deuteronomy 2:19 & Deuteronomy 2:37(Moses deprived land of Ammon)Joshua 13:24-25(Moses gives land of Ammon as inheritance)472 Samuel 24:9(800,000+500,000)1 Chronicles 21:5(1,100,000+470,000)482 Chronicles 36:9(Eight years, three months +10 days)2 Kings 24:8 (Eighteen years, three months)492 Samuel 10:18(700, 40,000 horsemen)1 Chronicles 19:18(7000, 40,000 footmen)501 Kings 7:26(two thousand baths)2 Chronicles 4:5(Three thousand baths)512 Samuel 6:23(Michal had no children)2 Samuel 21:8(Michal had five sons)52Genesis6:3(mankind shall not live past 120 years)Genesis 11:10-32 (500,438,433,464,...etc.)532 Chronicles 9:25(4,000 stalls)1 Kings 4:26(40,000 stalls)54Isaiah 40:28 (God does not faint nor weary)Exodus 31:17 (God rested, and was refreshed.)55John 1:18 ("No man hath seen God at any time")Genesis 32:30 ("I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved").56Genisis 1: (God creates Plants, then animals, then man and woman.)Genesis 2: (God creates man, then plants, then animals, then woman)57Ezekiel 45 and Ezekiel 46 (Doctrines of offerings and sacrifices)Numbers 28 and Numbers 29 (Contradictory doctrines of offerings and sacrifices)581 Chronicles 8:29-38 (One list of names)1 Chronicles 9:35-44 (A contradictory list of names)592 Samuel 5 and 2 Samuel 6 (David brought the ark after fighting the Philistines)1 Samuel 13 and 1 Samuel 14 (David brought the ark Before fighting the Philistines)60Genesis 6:19-20 (Noah was to bring onto the ark "of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive ....male and female....of fowls....of cattle....of every creeping thing of the earth...").Genesis 7:2-3 (Noah was to bring onto the ark "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female...").612 Samuel 8:1 ("David took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines").1 Chronicles 18:1 ("David...took Gath and her towns out of the hand of the Philistines").622 Samuel 8:8 ("And from Betah, and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass").1 Chronicles 18:8 ("Likewise from Tibhath, and from Chun, cities of Hadarezer, brought David very much brass").632 Samuel 8:10 ("Then Toi sent Joram his son unto king David")1 Chronicles 18:10 ("He sent Hadoram his son to king David")642 Samuel 8:12 ("Of Syria, and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek").1 Chronicles 18:11 ("from Edom, and from Moab, and from the children of Ammon, and from the Philistines, and from Amalek.652 Samuel 8:13 ("And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians in the valley of salt, being eighteen thousand men").1 Chronicles 18:13 ("And he put garrisons in Edom; and all the Edomites became David's servants").662 Samuel 8:17 ("and Seraiah was the scribe")1 Chronicles 18:16 ("and Shavsha was scribe")671 Kings 15:33-16:6 ("In the third year of Asa king of Judah began Baasha the son Ahijah to reign over all Israel in Tirzah, twenty four years..... So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah"). 3+24=27.2 Chronicles 16:1 ("In the thirty sixth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah"). But he died in the twenty seventh year!. Was he resurected?. So how did he invade Judah 10 years after his death?.68Ezra 2:6 (2812)Nehemiah 7:11 (2818)69Ezra 2:8 (945)Nehemiah 7:13 (845)70Ezra 2:12 (1222)Nehemiah 7:17 (2322)71Ezra 2:15 (454)Nehemiah 7:20 (655)72Ezra 2:19 (223)Nehemiah 7:22 (328)73Ezra 2:28 (223)Nehemiah 7:32 (123)___________________________maalkadh@mailbox.syr.edu
The following is a reprint of an article I sent a while back. It seems to fit in nicely in the current sequence of articlesso I will re-submit it now. How to prove to a Jew that the "Torah" is corrupt and not the original word of Moses (pbuh)
The following is a reprint of an article I sent a while back. It seems to fit in nicely in the current sequence of articlesso I will re-submit it now. How to prove to a Jew that the "Torah" is corrupt and not the original word of Moses (pbuh) Allah (SWT) says:"And argue not with the people of the book unless it be in (a way) which is better (than mere arguing), except with such of them that do wrong, and say (to them):
'We believe in that which had been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims)" Al-Ankaboot(29):46. The "people of the Book" includes Jews. Remember that. Even though Allah (SWT) has told us of the hatred they hide in their hearts, He has not command us to hate and kill every single Jew we meet simply because he is a Jew. We are better than that. We serve a higher purpose. For this reason, I am going to provide a very devastating argument against them in order to assist them in seeing the corruption of their forefathers and see how their God is even yet trying to save them and guide them to Islam. I cannot emphasize this point enough, please be respectful and receptive. Be willing to take abuse and respond with kindness. If one of them were to be guided, it will be to your benefit. It will take some time for you to read and digest the following proof, but once you have done so, no Jew will (inshallah, of course) ever be able to respond to you. Note: Please forward this message to all Islamic nets you may haveaccess to so that they may benifit from it. Now the proof: Did mankind tamper with the Old Testament?: "And because of their breaking their covenant,
We have cursed them and made hard their hearts.
They change words from their places and have abandoned a good part of the message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them and overlook(their misdeed). Verily! Allah loves the kindly". The Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):13. "O Messenger!(Mohammad) Do no be grieved by those who vie with one another in the race to disbelief, of such as say with their mouths: "We believe" but their hearts believe not, and of the Jews: of them are those who listen eagerly to lies -listening to others who have not come to you.
They change the words from their places; they say: If you are given this then take it, but if you are not given this then beware!
He whom Allah dooms unto sin, you (by your efforts) will avail him naught against Allah.
Those are they for whom the will of Allah is that He cleanse not their hearts; for them there is a disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a great torment". The Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):44. The Jews have, from one generation to another, handed down their Old Testament, as the faultless words of Moses (pbuh) and the prophets. The "Old testament" is made up of the "Torah" (Tawrat), (which is also called "the Pentateuch"), and the "books of the prophets". The "Torah" consists of the first five books of the Old Testament. They are believed by the Jews to have been written by Moses (pbuh). These five books are: "Genesis", "Exodus", "Leviticus", "Numbers", and "Deuteronomy". After the Christians decided to incorporate the Old Testament into their Bible, they began to study these books in great detail.. For countless ages, the only book of history available to Christians and Jews was the Old Testament. When someone wanted to know what happened in the past, they would go back and study the Old Testament to find the answer. New theories about history literally lived and died by their conformance to what the Old Testament taught. Then the discrepancies began to be noticed. Once mankind began to study the OT in detail, comparing the various passages which referred to the same topic in order to obtain as much detail as possible, they began to notice conflicting accounts of many matters as well as other problems. For instance, in the eleventh century, it was noticed that the list of Edomite kings in Genesis 36 names kings who lived long after Moses was dead. Then people began to notice such statements as "to this day" something is true, which implies that the author was looking back at these matters through history and has seen that they have endured. After this, it was noticed that in the beginning verses of the OT manuscripts, Deuteronomy says: "These are the words that Moses spoke to the children of Israel across the Jordan...".
They noticed that the words "across the Jordan" refers to people who are on the opposite side of the Jordan river to the author. But the alleged author, Moses himself, was never supposed to have been in Israel in his life. It was also noticed that Moses speaks in detail in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 about how he died and where he was buried. Moses also calls himself the most humble man on earth in Numbers 12:3 (would the most humble man on earth call himself the most humble man on earth?). In Deuteronomy 34:10 we read
"And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses".
This also implies that the author was looking back at Moses through history a long time after Moses's death. Now the flood gates were opened and countless other discrepancies began to show up. In the beginning, it was claimed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Five "books of Moses") and anyone contesting this fact would be severely punished or worse. However, when these matters started to become well known, it became necessary to find explanations. For example, the first explanation presented for the verses referring to the death of Moses was that Moses (pbuh) had written his books, but that later prophets, as well as "inspired" scribes (who could also be considered prophets), had later on added on a couple of lines here and there. In this manner the text remained 100% the "inspiration" of God. This explanation, however, did not stand up to scrutiny because the style and literary characteristics of the verses are the same throughout. For instance, the verses which describe the death and burial of Moses exhibit the same literary characteristics as the verses before and after them. Thus, they must have been written by the same person.The Doublets:After this, the trend became to explain any and all discrepancies through abstractism and elaborate interpretations, or through the introduction of additional narrative details that did not appear in the biblical text. Around this time, a startling new discovery was made. It was noticed that the stories in the five books of Moses were made up of doublets. A doublet is a case of one story being told twice. Even in the English translation of the Bible, the doublets are noticeable. These doublets have been masterfully intertwined so that they become one narrative. For example, there are doublets of the creation of the world, the covenant between God and Abraham, the naming of Isaac, Abraham's claim that his wife Sarah was his sister, the story of Jacob's journey to Mesopotamia, Jacob's revelation at Beth-El,.......and on and on. In many cases these doublets actually contradict one another. The apologists once again jumped up with an explanation in hand. They claimed that the doublets were complementary and not contradictive. It was claimed that they came to teach us a lesson by their "apparent" contradiction. However, this claim did not hold water for long. The reason is that not long after, it was discovered that when the doublets were separated into two separate accounts, each account was almost always consistent about the name of the deity that it used. One would always refer to God as Yahweh/Jehovah. This document was called "J". The other always referred to Him as Elohim(God). It was called "E". There were various other literary characteristics which were then found to be common to one group or the other. It became obvious that someone had taken two separate accounts of the ministry of Moses (pbuh), cut them up, and then woven them together quite masterfully so that their actions would not be discovered until countless centuries later. Once this startling discovery was made, the Old Testament was once again placed under the scrutiny of scholars and it was discovered that the Pentateuch was not made up of two major source documents but FOUR. It was discovered that some stories were not only doublets, but triplets. Additional literary characteristics were identified for these documents. The third source was called P (for Priestly), and the fourth D (for Deuteronomy). In the end it was concluded that the first four "books of Moses" were the result of the merging of three separate accounts which were called J, E, and P, and the book of Deuteronomy was found to be a separate account which was called D. The person (or persons) who collected and intertwined these sources was called "The Redactor". Let us have a look at an example of these doublets from Genesis 6:5 to 8:22. The Jehovah(J) text is in regular type, THE PRIESTLY(P) IN CAPITALS: Genesis 6:Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Genesis 6:7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Genesis 6:9 THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH: NOAH WAS A JUST MAN AND PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS, AND NOAH WALKED WITH GOD. Genesis 6:10 AND NOAH BEGAT THREE SONS, SHEM, HAM, AND JAPHETH. Genesis 6:11 THE EARTH ALSO WAS CORRUPT BEFORE GOD, AND THE EARTH WAS FILLED WITH VIOLENCE. Genesis 6:12 AND GOD LOOKED UPON THE EARTH, AND, BEHOLD, IT WAS CORRUPT; FOR ALL FLESH HAD CORRUPTED HIS WAY UPON THE EARTH. Genesis 6:13 AND GOD SAID UNTO NOAH, THE END OF ALL FLESH IS COME BEFORE ME; FOR THE EARTH IS FILLED WITH VIOLENCE THROUGH THEM; AND, BEHOLD, I WILL DESTROY THEM WITH THE EARTH. Genesis 6:14 MAKE THEE AN ARK OF GOPHER WOOD; ROOMS SHALT THOU MAKE IN THE ARK, AND SHALT PITCH IT WITHIN AND WITHOUT WITH PITCH. Genesis 6:15 AND THIS IS THE FASHION WHICH THOU SHALT MAKE IT OF: THE LENGTH OF THE ARK SHALL BE THREE HUNDRED CUBITS, THE BREADTH OF IT FIFTY CUBITS, AND THE HEIGHT OF IT THIRTY CUBITS. Genesis 6:16 A WINDOW SHALT THOU MAKE TO THE ARK, AND IN A CUBIT SHALT THOU FINISH IT ABOVE; AND THE DOOR OF THE ARK SHALT THOU SET IN THE SIDE THEREOF; WITH LOWER, SECOND, AND THIRD STORIES SHALT THOU MAKE IT. Genesis 6:17 AND, BEHOLD, I, EVEN I, DO BRING A FLOOD OF WATERS UPON THE EARTH, TO DESTROY ALL FLESH, WHEREIN IS THE BREATH OF LIFE, FROM UNDER HEAVEN; AND EVERY THING THAT IS IN THE EARTH SHALL DIE. Genesis 6:18 BUT WITH THEE WILL I ESTABLISH MY COVENANT; AND THOU SHALT COME INTO THE ARK, THOU, AND THY SONS, AND THY WIFE, AND THY SONS' WIVES WITH THEE. Genesis 6:19 AND OF EVERY LIVING THING OF ALL FLESH, TWO OF EVERY SORT SHALT THOU BRING INTO THE ARK, TO KEEP THEM ALIVE WITH THEE; THEY SHALL BE MALE AND FEMALE. Genesis 6:20 OF FOWLS AFTER THEIR KIND, AND OF CATTLE AFTER THEIR KIND, OF EVERY CREEPING THING OF THE EARTH AFTER HIS KIND, TWO OF EVERY SORT SHALL COME UNTO THEE, TO KEEP THEM ALIVE. Genesis 6:21 AND TAKE THOU UNTO THEE OF ALL FOOD THAT IS EATEN, AND THOU SHALT GATHER IT TO THEE; AND IT SHALL BE FOR FOOD FOR THEE, AND FOR THEM. Genesis 6:22 THUS DID NOAH; ACCORDING TO ALL THAT GOD COMMANDED HIM, SO DID HE. Genesis 7:Genesis 7:1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Genesis 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. Genesis 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. Genesis 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him. Genesis 7:6 AND NOAH WAS SIX HUNDRED YEARS OLD WHEN THE FLOOD OF WATERS WAS UPON THE EARTH. Genesis 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. Genesis 7:8 OF CLEAN BEASTS, AND OF BEASTS THAT ARE NOT CLEAN, AND OF FOWLS, AND OF EVERY THING THAT CREEPETH UPON THE EARTH, Genesis 7:9 THERE WENT IN TWO AND TWO UNTO NOAH INTO THE ARK, THE MALE AND THE FEMALE, AS GOD HAD COMMANDED NOAH. Genesis 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. Genesis 7:11 IN THE SIX HUNDREDTH YEAR OF NOAH'S LIFE, IN THE SECOND MONTH, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH, THE SAME DAY WERE ALL THE FOUNTAINS OF THE GREAT DEEP BROKEN UP, AND THE WINDOWS OF HEAVEN WERE OPENED. Genesis 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. Genesis 7:13 IN THE SELFSAME DAY ENTERED NOAH, AND SHEM, AND HAM, AND JAPHETH, THE SONS OF NOAH, AND NOAH'S WIFE, AND THE THREE WIVES OF HIS SONS WITH THEM, INTO THE ARK; Genesis 7:14 THEY, AND EVERY BEAST AFTER HIS KIND, AND ALL THE CATTLE AFTER THEIR KIND, AND EVERY CREEPING THING THAT CREEPETH UPON THE EARTH AFTER HIS KIND, AND EVERY FOWL AFTER HIS KIND, EVERY BIRD OF EVERY SORT. Genesis 7:15 AND THEY WENT IN UNTO NOAH INTO THE ARK, TWO AND TWO OF ALL FLESH, WHEREIN IS THE BREATH OF LIFE. Genesis 7:16 AND THEY THAT WENT IN, WENT IN MALE AND FEMALE OF ALL FLESH, AS GOD HAD COMMANDED HIM: and the Lord shut him in. Genesis 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. Genesis 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. Genesis 7:21 AND ALL FLESH DIED THAT MOVED UPON THE EARTH, BOTH OF FOWL, AND OF CATTLE, AND OF BEAST, AND OF EVERY CREEPING THING THAT CREEPETH UPON THE EARTH, AND EVERY MAN: Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. Genesis 7:24 AND THE WATERS PREVAILED UPON THE EARTH AN HUNDRED AND FIFTY DAYS. Genesis 8:Genesis 8:1 AND GOD REMEMBERED NOAH, AND EVERY LIVING THING, AND ALL THE CATTLE THAT WAS WITH HIM IN THE ARK: AND GOD MADE A WIND TO PASS OVER THE EARTH, AND THE WATERS ASSWAGED; Genesis 8:2 THE FOUNTAINS ALSO OF THE DEEP AND THE WINDOWS OF HEAVEN WERE STOPPED, and the rain from heaven was restrained; Genesis 8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: AND AFTER THE END OF THE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DAYS THE WATERS WERE ABATED. Genesis 8:4 AND THE ARK RESTED IN THE SEVENTH MONTH, ON THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH, UPON THE MOUNTAINS OF ARARAT. Genesis 8:5 AND THE WATERS DECREASED CONTINUALLY UNTIL THE TENTH MONTH: IN THE TENTH MONTH, ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH, WERE THE TOPS OF THE MOUNTAINS SEEN. Genesis 8:6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: Genesis 8:7 AND HE SENT FORTH A RAVEN, WHICH WENT FORTH TO AND FRO, UNTIL THE WATERS WERE DRIED UP FROM OFF THE EARTH. Genesis 8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; Genesis 8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark. Genesis 8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; Genesis 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. Genesis 8:12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more. Genesis 8:13 AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE SIX HUNDREDTH AND FIRST YEAR, IN THE FIRST MONTH, THE FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH, THE WATERS WERE DRIED UP FROM OFF THE EARTH: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. Genesis 8:14 AND IN THE SECOND MONTH, ON THE SEVEN AND TWENTIETH DAY OF THE MONTH, WAS THE EARTH DRIED. Genesis 8:15 AND GOD SPAKE UNTO NOAH, SAYING, Genesis 8:16 GO FORTH OF THE ARK, THOU, AND THY WIFE, AND THY SONS, AND THY SONS' WIVES WITH THEE. Genesis 8:17 BRING FORTH WITH THEE EVERY LIVING THING THAT IS WITH THEE, OF ALL FLESH, BOTH OF FOWL, AND OF CATTLE, AND OF EVERY CREEPING THING THAT CREEPETH UPON THE EARTH; THAT THEY MAY BREED ABUNDANTLY IN THE EARTH, AND BE FRUITFUL, AND MULTIPLY UPON THE EARTH. Genesis 8:18 AND NOAH WENT FORTH, AND HIS SONS, AND HIS WIFE, AND HIS SONS' WIVES WITH HIM: Genesis 8:19 EVERY BEAST, EVERY CREEPING THING, AND EVERY FOWL, AND WHATSOEVER CREEPETH UPON THE EARTH, AFTER THEIR KINDS, WENT FORTH OUT OF THE ARK. Genesis 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. Genesis 8:21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease Well known today:All of this has become so firmly established in accepted scientific fact that even Grolier's encyclopedia (Academic American encyclopedia) now readily admits it. Under the heading "Divisions of the Old Testament" it states:
"The Pentateuch is based on four principal sources. The oldest, J, was perhaps written in Judah, the southern kingdom, about 950 BC. Between 900 and 750, another version from Israel, the northern kingdom, was woven in; this is called EPHRAIM (E). In the 7th century BC, Deuteronomy, or most of it (D), was compiled. About 550 BC, during the exile, the final edition of the Torah added a priestly source (P), some parts of which are very old". Mr. Richard Elliot Friedman is a professor on the faculty of the University of California, San Diego. He earned his Doctorate in Hebrew Bible at Harvard University. He is one of many scholars who have attempted to critically study these "source" documents of the "five books of Moses" in order to arrive at the identity of the authors, the time period when each was written, the motives for writing each narrative, and other information. In his book "Who wrote the Bible", Prof. Friedman presents strong evidence that each "source document" was written by a person or persons who, while on the face of it seem to narrate the same stories, in actuality had distinctly different goals they wished to achieve. According to Mr. Friedman's research, each source emphasizes a certain branch of the Jews, their nobility, birth right, and closeness to God. Sometimes at the price of other branches of the Jews. For instance, J was written by descendants of Judah, E came from descendants of Israel, and P was written by a priest from the descendants of Aaron. According to Mr. Friedman, the P (Priestly) source seems to be particularly interested in priests, their lineage, their being the only ones who are allowed to sacrifice to God, the importance of sacrifice to God, and the surprising absence of all stories wherein anyone not of their lineage made a sacrifice that was accepted by God (for instance the sacrifice of the sons of Adam is missing from this narrative). It also contains stories of how all those who attempted to make sacrifices to God without the agency of an Aaronid priest were killed by God. The author goes on to show how in J and E we can find similar emphasis on one tribe of the Jews over the other. For instance, on pages 64-65 he shows how both the J and E documents attempt to give the birthright of Jacob to their own forefathers. He also shows how in the E version, Joseph is saved by his brother Ruben (the firstborn of Israel), while in the J version it is Judah who saves him. The author presents countless other proofs of these claims. The JE texts emphasize the prophet (Moses). They depict Aaron as having fashioned the golden calf. They also describe Aaron and his sister Meriam as having criticized Moses and having been chastised by God himself for this. They regularly have God saying "and Yahweh said unto Moses....". The P document (written by Aaronid priests), however, usually states: "and Yahweh said unto Moses and unto Aaron.....". In this document, the staff Moses used to perform his miracles is called "Aaron's staff". In the P document Aaron is also named as the firstborn brother of Moses. Also, as mentioned previously, in the P text no mention is made of any sacrifices to God whatsoever until the last chapter of Exodus wherein we find the story of Aaron's sacrifice when he was consecrated as high priest. After that, all sacrifices are performed by Aaron and his sons. In other words, the author of P gives no precedence for sacrifice for anyone other than an Aaronid priest. There are even a couple of places in this document which denigrate Moses (pbuh). They depicts Moses (pbuh) as sinning and Aaron suffering for Moses's sin. The rest of the books of the Jews:Well, what about the rest of the Old Testament?. Are the remaining books of the Old Testament known to have been preserved from change since the time of their first writing and truly to be the words of the claimed authors?. No!. Once again, Groliers encyclopedia tells us:
".....Joshua tells of a thorough conquest of Canaan, but Judges contains traditions of the Hebrew tribes in the period before the monarchy that reveal the conquest as partial. The books of Samuel are about the founding of the monarchy under SAUL and David and contain a magnificent early source for the life of David, probably written about 961-22 BC. ALL THE ABOVE BOOKS HAVE BEEN EXTENSIVELY EDITED BY WRITERS WHO SHARED THE THEOLOGY OF THE D SOURCE". There is much more which could be said about these matters, however, we will leave it up to the interested student to obtain a copy of Mr. Freidman's book and read his comments. Fourteen hundred years ago, back when it was a blasphemy of the highest order punishable by death to dare allege that the claimed authors of the Bible were not the true authors, e.g. that Moses (pbuh) did not write the "books of Moses", the Qur'an was sent down upon Mohammad (pbuh) by God almighty with the claim that "the people of the Book" (Jews and Christians) had changed the book of God. Mohammad (pbuh) further claimed that he was sent with the true religion of God which was sent down upon Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them all). The Jews and Christians responded that Muslims were ignorant savages who had concocted their own religion by copying Judaism and Christianity, and only an insane person would ever make such allegations. We invite the reader to judge for themselves who was telling the truth. The books of the Christians:Is all of this restricted to the Old Testament?. No!. Christian scholars today call the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the "Synoptic" (One eyed) Gospels. This is because they all seem to have had access to a common source document they were working from when they wrote their Gospels. This source document is called 'Q '. Now they are beginning to recognize that the alleged authors are not the true authors. Similarly, countless verses of the Gospel of John, as well as other historical discrepancies, also go to show that John did not write the Gospel of John. Some scholars are now beginning to suspect that 'Q' may indeed be the Gospel of Barnabas. It is much larger than the others, by all measures it is an authentic Gospel (previous post), and it contains all of the stories contained in these three Gospels without the contradictions found therein. "Of the Jews are those change words from their places and say: "We hear (your words O Mohammad) and disobey; hear you as one who hears not" and "give us concession" with a twist of their tongues and as a mockery of religion(Islam). But if only they had said: "We hear and we obey" and "Do make us understand" it would have been better for them and more upright. But Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except a few".
The Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):46. "Then woe to those who write the book (of God) with their own hands and then say:
'This is from Allah', to traffic with it for a miserable price.
Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby"
The holy Qur'an Al-Bakarah(2):79 A different approach:Specific contradictions in the books of the Jews:The following are pairs of verses which contradict one another in the books of the Jews:2 Samuel 8:4(7 HUNDRED horsemen)1 Chronicles 18:4(7 THOUSAND horsemen)1 Chronicles 21:12(THREE years famine) 2 Samuel 24:13(SEVEN years famine)Deuteronomy 2:19 & Deuteronomy 2:37(Moses deprived land of Ammon)Joshua 13:24-25(Moses gives land of Ammon as inheritance)2 Samuel 24:9(800,000+500,000)1 Chronicles 21:5(1,100,000+470,000)2 Chronicles 36:9(EIGHT years, three months +10 days)2 Kings 24:8 (EIGHTEEN years, three months)2 Samuel 10:18(700, 40,000 HORSEMEN)1 Chronicles 19:18(7000, 40,000 FOOTMEN)1 Kings 7:26(TWO thousand baths)2 Chronicles 4:5(THREE thousand baths)2 Samuel 6:23(Michal had NO children)2 Samuel 21:8(Michal had FIVE sons)Genesis6:3(mankind shall not live past 120 years)Genesis 11:10-32 (500,438,433,464,...etc.)2 Chronicles 9:25(4,000 stalls)1 Kings 4:26(40,000 stalls)Isaiah 40:28 (God does not FAINT nor WEARY)Exodus 31:17 (God RESTED, and was REFRESHED.)Genisis 1: (God creates Plants, THEN animals, THEN man and woman.)Genesis 2: (God creates man, THEN plants, THEN animals, THEN woman)Ezekiel 45 and Ezekiel 46 (DOCTRINES of offerings and sacrifices)Numbers 28 and Numbers 29 (CONTRADICTORY DOCTRINES of offerings and sacrifices)1 Chronicles 8:29-38 (One list of NAMES)1 Chronicles 9:35-44 (A CONTRADICTORY list of NAMES)2 Samuel 5 and 2 Samuel 6 (David brought the ark AFTER fighting the Philistines)1 Samuel 13 and 1 Samuel 14 (David brought the ark BEFORE fighting the Philistines)Genesis 6:19-20 (Noah was to bring onto the ark "of EVERY living thing of all flesh, TWO of EVERY sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive ....male and female....of fowls....of cattle....of every creeping thing of the earth...").Genesis 7:2-3 (Noah was to bring onto the ark "Of every CLEAN beast thou shalt take to thee by SEVENS, the male and his female: and of beasts that are NOT CLEAN by TWO, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female...").2 Samuel 8:1 ("David took METHEGAMMAH out of the hand of the Philistines").1 Chronicles 18:1 ("David...took GATH and her towns out of the hand of the Philistines").2 Samuel 8:8 ("And from BETAH, and from BEROTHAI, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass").1 Chronicles 18:8 ("Likewise from TIBHATH, and from CHUN, cities of Hadarezer, brought David very much brass").2 Samuel 8:10 ("Then Toi sent JORAM his son unto king David")1 Chronicles 18:10 ("He sent HADORAM his son to king David")2 Samuel 8:12 ("Of SYRIA, and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek").1 Chronicles 18:11 ("from EDOM, and from Moab, and from the children of Ammon, and from the Philistines, and from Amalek.2 Samuel 8:13 ("And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the SYRIANS in the valley of salt, being eighteen thousand men").1 Chronicles 18:13 ("And he put garrisons in EDOM; and all the EDOMITES became David's servants").2 Samuel 8:17 ("and SERAIAH was the scribe")1 Chronicles 18:16 ("and SHAVSHA was scribe")1 Kings 15:33-16:6 ("In the THIRD year of Asa king of Judah began Baasha the son Ahijah to reign over all Israel in Tirzah, TWENTY FOUR years..... So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was BURIED in Tirzah"). 3+24=27.2 Chronicles 16:1 ("In the THIRTY SIXTH year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah"). But he died in the twenty seventh year!. Was he resurected?. So how did he invade Judah 10 years after his death?.Ezra 2:6 (2812)Nehemiah 7:11 (2818)Ezra 2:8 (945)Nehemiah 7:13 (845)Ezra 2:12 (1222)Nehemiah 7:17 (2322)Ezra 2:15 (454)Nehemiah 7:20 (655)Ezra 2:19 (223)Nehemiah 7:22 (328)Ezra 2:28 (223)Nehemiah 7:32 (123)Inshallah this information will prove useful to all Muslims. AameenYour brother,Misheal A. Al-KadhiThis is the eighth part in the ongoing series which will, by Allah's will, prove all of the claims of Allah in the Qur'an regarding the Bible. As seen in the past, only the Christian Bible and Christian scholars have been quoted in defense of the position of the Qur'an. We have already proven in past posts that the Torah of the Jews was corrupted by mankind and shown the proof of that. We also exhibited over 73 examples of contradictions in the Bible. Before that, we presented many very detailed prophesies of the coming of Mohammed (pbuh) from the Bible, and we also spoke briefly about how the Bible was "collected" and how to this day Christianity does not know who wrote the books of the Bible or if they were indeed "inspired". A couple of words were also written to show how the Christian's own "Gospel of Barnabas" and "Shepherd of Hermas" confirm all of the claims of the Qur'an even they remained hidden away in the Christian Vatican for centuries.Let us now move on to a side issue which really has nothing to do with basic doctrine but is without exception always brought up by Christians in their claims against the Qur'an, specifically: women. For this reason it becomes necessary to respectfully quote to them their own Bible so that they may bear the words of their own Bible in mind when they claim that Christianity respects women more than Islam does.It never ceases to amaze me. Whenever the topic of Islam is brought up among Christians, the first objection that immediately springs into their minds is not the "trinity", "son of God", "attonement"..etc, but first and foremost: "But women are so extremely oppressed in Islam". Even though this topic is usually brought up out of ignorance and in order to distract attention from more fundamental issues of worship such as the "trinity" and the "divine sonship" ...etc., still it seems inevitable to touch on this subject even if only very briefly because of it's importance.The problem is twofold: First of all, these people usually only have a very superficial knowledge of what Islam is, and secondly, they are ignorant of their own religion.People who make these allegations against Islam can usually be described by one or all of the following:1) The have gotten their information from a non-Muslim biased media which adores sensationalism and has no use for interviewing people who are actually content with their way of life. These people have also, more often than not, never been to an Islamic country.2) Even if they have ever been to an Islamic country, they have never bothered to try to get to know the natives and actually speak with them and get their true opinions but preferred to stick close to their own closed circle of fellow countrymen never venturing far away from them.3) They do not differentiate between the words and actions of a government in an Islamic country and the teachings of Islam itself. Is it logical to say: "The United States does not permit religious education in it's public schools. The United States is a Christian country. Therefore, Christianity does not allow the teaching of religion in public schools"?.As the saying goes: "you can't please all of the people all of the time". During the days of the Communist Soviet Union, there was no shortage of articles in that country condemning the decadent West, the moral decay of their society, and their complete lack of love for their fellow countrymen. You might even be able to find a couple of articles about the imminent fall of such a materialistic Western society and maybe even interviews with some of the socialist Communist reform groups within the United States itself and their opinions about the abysmal conditions in the USA. The reader could then conclude that all of the citizens of the United States hate democracy and long for the day when communism will free them from the shackles of democracy.Many non-Muslims feel sorry for any Muslim women they see adorned in their modest clothing. They are deprived the freedom to roam around in more scant and revealing clothing. Anyone who lives in a manner other that which they have become accustomed to is seen by them to be oppressed and forced to live in this manner. There are certain tribes in the Amazon jungle and in Africa which have become accustomed to walking around in a simple g-string around their waist. What would the people of the West say if these people were to condemn the Western habit of wearing "excessive amounts of clothing" and to demand that all women in the west immediately stop wearing anything but the simplest g-string around their waist?. What if they were to say that the Western society should immediately stop unjustly persecuting their women and preventing them from freely roaming the streets wearing only a pair of socks?. They would say that the people making these demands have no morals or shame. Philosophers would have a field day with such a question. What if someone were to claim that it was immoral, discriminatory, and unjust to separate men and women in different public bathrooms just as it is not just to do so with blacks and whites. What if this person were to then call (in the interest of equality, fairness, and constitutional freedom of course) for a merging of men and women's bathrooms into one "unisex" or "equal-opportunity" bathrooms for both men and women?. Once again, the philosophers would have a field day. Anyone who follows the news will see that this is indeed where the USA is now headed. In the New York Post (31 Aug. 1994 or a little before) it is reported that women have now won the right to appear topless in the New York subway system. Where will the USA be a few years from now?. That is anyone's guess.Who has the power to determine what is decent and modest clothing?. Who is to determine what is decent and modest behavior?. Muslims assign this right to God alone. This is the essence of "Islam". "Islam" means "The submission to the will of God". What God commands, a Muslim does. They do not demand that God justify his commands before they accept them. Once they have verified that a command is indeed from God then they abide by it without hesitation.Well then, what is the Biblical view on these matters?. For all those Christians who would like to see what the Bible has to say about women, we will quote a small sample:What St. Paul's "new covenant" has to say:1 Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression".1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church".1 Corinthians 11:5-10: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."1 Corinthians 11:13: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God (with her head) uncovered?"What the Old Testament has to say:Genesis 3:12-16 "And the man (Adam) said, The woman (Eve) whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".Leviticus 12:2-5 "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days".In other words, the Bible teaches us that:1) Women should learn in silence and subjugation.2) Women should not teach.3) Women should not have authority over men but should remain silent.4) Adam and Eve were not equal in sin. Adam was not deceived but Eve was.5) Women must keep silent in Churches and not open their mouths.6) Women are commanded to be under obedience to men.7) Women should not ask a question in Church. If they have a question they should ask their husbands before going to church and then their husbands will ask for them in the church. 8) It is a shame for women to speak in the church.9) God ordained that men shall for all time rule over women.10) A woman should neither pray nor profess with her head uncovered.11) If a woman prays with her head uncovered then she might as well shave her head.12) Man was created in the image and glory of God, and Woman was created in the glory of Man, thus Man must have power over her head.13) Any woman who delivers a male baby shall be unclean for one week. But any woman who delivers a female baby shall be unclean for TWO weeks. Thus, females make their mothers DOUBLY unclean as compared to males.What the canonized saints of Christianity said about women:
"Woman is a daughter of falsehood, a sentinel of Hell, the enemy of peace; through her Adam lost paradise" (St. John Demascene)"Woman is the instrument which the devil uses to gain possession of our souls" (St. Cyprian)"Woman is the fountain of the arm of the devil, her voice is the hissing of the serpent" (St. Anthony)"Woman has the poison of an asp, the malice of a dragon" (St. Gregory the great)It is generally accepted that St. Paul, the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament, underwent a "miraculous" conversion from a persecutor and killer of Christians into a more perfect teacher of Christianity than the apostles themselves (see future posts). It is also well known that just prior to Paul's "miraculous" conversion and "heavenly vision" he had been extremely infatuated with a woman called Popea and had wished to marry her. Popea was the attractive but ambitious daughter of the high priest of the Jews. She possessed haughty beauty, and an intriguing mind. She liked Paul but rejected his offers of marriage. She went to Rome as an actress. She started on the stage and ended up in Emperor Nero's bed. She eventually married him and became the Empress of the Roman Empire. For any normal man this would have been sufficient reason to hate both the Jews, the Romans, and probably even all women in general. After his conversion, Paul began to preach celibacy (See most of 1 Corinthians 7). If Paul would have had his way, mankind would have become extinct.So what is the official standpoint of the Qur'an with regard to women?. Let us have a look:"And they (women) have rights similar to those of men over them in a just manner"
Qur'an Al-Baqarah(2):228"And their Lord has heard them (and He says):
Verily! I suffer not the work of any worker, male or female, to be lost.
You proceed one from another. So those who fled and were driven forth from their homes and suffered damage for My cause, and fought and were slain, verily I shall remit their evil deeds from them and verily I shall bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow. A reward from Allah. And with Allah is the fairest of rewards". Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):195."And covet not the thing in which Allah has made some of you excel others.
Unto men a fortune from that which they have earned, and unto women a fortune from that which they have earned. (Envy not one another) but ask Allah of His bounty.
Verily! Allah is Knower of all things".
Qur'an Al-Nissa(4):32."Unto the men (of a family) belongs a share of that which parents and near kindred leave, and unto the women a share of that which parents and near kindred leave, whether it be little or much, a legal share".
Qur'an Al-Nissa(4):77."And whoso does good works, whether of male or female, and he (or she) is a believer, such will enter paradise and they will not be wronged the dint in a date stone".
Al-Nissa(4):124."And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends one of another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and they establish worship and they pay the poor-due, and they obey Allah and His messenger. As for these, Allah will have mercy on them. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise".
Qur'an Al-Tauba(9):71"Whosoever does right, whether male or female, and is a believer, him verily We shall quicken with good life, and We shall pay them a recompense in proportion to the best of what they used to do".
Qur'an, Al-Nahil(16):97."And of His signs is this: He created for you spouses from yourselves that you might find tranquillity in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy.
Lo, herein indeed are signs for folk who reflect".
Qur'an Al-Room(30):21"Whoso does an ill deed, he will be repaid the like thereof, while whoso does right, whether male or female, and is a believer, (all) such will enter the Garden, where they will be nourished without stint". Qur'an 40.In the Qur'an, both Adam and Eve share the blame for eating from the tree. This can be seen in the Qur'an in such verses as Al-Baqarah(2):36, Al-A'araf(7):22-24. They were also both forgiven by God almighty for this sin. Actually, in one verse of the Qur'an (Taha(20):121), Adam is specifically blamed.Islam encourages spouses to take each other's council and to seek mutual agreement in matters which affect them, for example, in the Qur'an, Al-Bakarah(2):233 we read:
"Mothers shall suckle their children for two whole years;
(that is) for those who wish to complete the suckling.
The duty of feeding and clothing nursing mothers in a seemly manner is upon the father of the child. No one should be charged beyond their capacity.
A mother should not be made to suffer because of her child, nor should he to whom the child is born (be made to suffer) because of his child. And on the (father's) heir is incumbent the like of that (which was incumbent on the father). If they desire to wean the child by mutual consent and (after) consultation, it is no sin for them; and if you wish to give your children out to nurse, it is no sin for you, provided that you pay what is due from you in kindness.
Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is Seer of what you do".Husbands are commanded to treat their wives with kindness and respect. In Al-Nissa(4)-19 we read "..But consort with them in kindness, for if you hate them it may happen that you hate a thing wherein Allah has placed much good".
The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) said: "The most perfect believers are the best in conduct, and the best of you are those who are best to their wives".These are only the tip of the iceberg, as any truly comprehensive study of this matter would require quite a few hundred pages just to contain the verses of the Qur'an and the sayings of the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in this regard.___________________________maalkadh@mailbox.syr.edu
This will, by Allah's will, be the ninth in a series of articles which will prove all of the claims of the Qur'an regarding the Bible. Thelast eight articles have already:1) presented four very detailed predictions of the coming of Mohammed (pbuh) in the Bible2) Shown very clear proof that the "torah" of the Jews was not written by Moses (pbuh).3) Presented a short list of 73 contradictions between the verses of the Bible4) Shown how all of the claims of the Qur'an are verified in the"Gospel of Barnabas" and that this Gospel has been hidden in the Christian Vatican for centuries now.5) Shown how the scholars of Christianity do not know who wrote the books of the bible, and how these books were at one time considered "apocryphic" and doubtful while at the same time, books which are today considered apocryphic were then considered authentic.In addition to other matters.In this article we will by Allah's will begin to reveal how the Bible was modified, who did it, and why. This is much to large and complex a topic to be dealt with in one article, so it will be necessary todivide this discussion into multiple articles which will exhibit the historical sequence of events which lead up to the distortion of the Bible. All of my claims will be substantiated through the words ofChristian scholars and references, or through the Bible itself. (by Allah's will).Mr. Ernest Ong (ernie@tartarus.uwa.edu.au ) said: You are quite right there. Many things that are attributed to Jesus, the current scholars agree weren't actually spoken by Jesus. In fact, trying to figure out which ones Jesus actually did say, is pretty tricky, as you could imagine. Isn't it amazing that the Qur'an told us this over 1400 years ago?. Isn't it amazing that the Qur'an said this back at a time when people were casually put to death and burned at the stake for daring to think such thoughts. Today we are able to agree that much of what is claimed to have been said by Jesus (pbuh) was falsely attributed to him by others. So now, not only has the first claim of the Qur'an been proven true but acceptance of this fact has become so universal among Christian scholars that it is not even the subject of debate anymore (a minority of the most adamant conservatives will always be the exception). So now that it is well know and accepted among them that the Bible is the end result of countless people putting words in the mouth of Jesus (pbuh) for many centuries, and you yourself readily recognize this, now it becomes necissary to try and distill the true words of Jesus (pbuh) from all of the "trimming" and "embroidery" and "clarification", and "divine inspiration of Jesus to the Church". Many scholars have all but given up on ever finding the true teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and distinguishing it from all of the "insertions". 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" . Mr.C.G.Tucker Says in his book "The history of the Christians in the light of modern knowledge" ".....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". All of this even though in Deuteronomy 4:2 we read "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 five Gospels", is a 550 page translation of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It was the result of a six year study by 24 Christian scholars from some of the most prestigious universities the United States and Canada have to offer. They decided to produce a translation of the Gospels which would be uncolored by the translator's personal faith. It was decided that this translation was to give the reader an honest picture of what Jesus (pbuh) truly said. They scanned the text for the words of Jesus (pbuh), and collect an index of over 1,500 such sayings. They then tested the validity of each of these sayings, one at a time, to see whether Jesus (pbuh) truly said each one. They then produced a fresh translation, color-coded to show authentic Jesuite sayings and those of an unreliable nature. Their conclusion (page 5) was:"EIGHTY-TWO PERCENT of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him". They go on to say: "..biblical scholars and theologians alike have learned to distinguish the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith. It has been a painful lesson for both the church and scholarship. The distinction between the two figures is the difference between a historical person who lived in a particular time and place.......and a figure who has been assigned a mythical role, in which he descends from heaven to rescue humankind and, of course, eventually returns there". Well then, if 82% of the "words of Jesus" found in the Bible were never spoken by him then where did they come from?. Some of the sources demonstrated by the authors are:"The concept of plagiarism was unknown in the ancient world. Authors freely copied from predecessors without acknowledgment. Sages became the repository of free-floating proverbs and witticisms. For the first Christians, Jesus was a legendary sage: it was proper to attribute the world's wisdom to him. The proverb in Mark 2:17, for example, is attested in secular sources (Plutarch and Diogenes for example)......in the parallel to the Markan passage, Matthew adds a sentence taken from the prophet Hosea (Matt 9:13)".Also: "Hard sayings are frequently softened in the process of transmission to adapt them to the conditions of daily living.....Variations in difficult saying often betray the struggle of the early Christian community to interpret or adapt sayings to it's own situations.... Matthew's version of the aphorism "The last will be first and the first last"(Matt 20:16) is softened in Mark 10:31 to "MANY of the first will be last, and of the last MANY will be first"".And probably most revealing: "Christian conviction eventually overwhelms Jesus: he is made to confess what Christians had come to believe....The contrast between Christian language or viewpoint and the language or viewpoint of Jesus is a very important clue to the real voice of Jesus, the language of Jesus was distinctive, as was his style and perspective".If Nostradamus had predicted in the sixteenth century that "three hundred years from now it will be found that mankind has been continuously tampering with the Bible", then three centuries later, when this prediction would come true, people would be scrambling to find every single scrap of information they could about what else he knew about this matter. The claims of Qur'an on the other hand are slowly being verified by Christian scholars, but it can't possibly be that the Qur'an could be right in anything else, there must be another explanation. they continue to look for the true word of Jesus (pbuh) from among all of the false ones, and will never attempt to verify any of the other claims of the Qur'an regarding Jesus (pbuh) true message or his true words and gospel to his followers. All that we know, is what His followers then taught. From their teachings, we can conclude that they are quite consistent, with respect to each other. St Paul's letters are a good place to start, since St Paul met with the 12 and would surely know their ideas. It is interesting you should put it exactly this way. I intend to prove what Christian scholars have already written quite extensively about. That "Saint Paul" is the one chiefly responsible for the changes to the Bible and that he openly lied and even admitted to lying against God, and his teachings were in direct opposition to those of the apostles of Jesus (pbuh). Remember, "St. Paul", a Jew who was formerly known as "Saul of Tarsus", was well known for the persecution of the followers of Jesus (pbuh) and even presided over the death of some of them."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 Galatians 1:13-15, Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-2, Acts 9:41, Acts 6:5.. etc."Saint Paul" never met Jesus (pbuh) personally, but he would later announce that he was receiving "visions" from Jesus (pbuh) that made him a more perfect teacher of the "true" religion of
Jesus (pbuh) than the apostles who accompanied him during his mission. He is the author of the majority of the books of the new testament available today. In these books, he speaks of the apostles as lazy, misguided, hypocrites (see below)."St. Paul" decided that he wanted to preach to the Greeks. However,the religion of Jesus (pbuh) was never meant for them, it was only meant to be taught to the Jews. The Greeks hated the Jews with such a passion that for them to hear that a Jew loved something was sufficient motive for them to hate it. 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".
If Paul wanted to convert these people, he would need to make Christianity a little more appealing to them, which he (and later his church) did. The Qur'an tells us that Jesus (pbuh) was sent to the Jews alone in order to return them to the true religion of Moses (pbuh) which had been corrupted by mankind: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Allah gives you glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary,
illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).
He will speak unto mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous.
She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal has touched me?
He said: So (it will be). Allah createth what He will. if He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel.
And will make him a messenger unto the children of Israel, (saying): Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by Allah's leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah's leave. And I announce unto you what you eat and what you store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you, if you are believers.
And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you.
I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.
Lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path.
But when Jesus became conscious of their disbelief, he cried:
Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah?
The disciples said: We will be Allah's helpers. We believe in Allah, and bear you witness that we have surrendered (unto Him). Our Lord! We believe in that which You have revealed and we follow him whom You have sent. Enroll us among those who witness (to the truth).
And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them):
and Allah is the best of schemers"
A'al-Umran(3):45-54. This is confirmed in the Bible in Matthew 5:17-19
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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 sameshall be called great in the kingdom of heaven".Heaven and earth have not yet passed. The fact that you are readingthis bears witness to this very simple fact. Thus, Jesus (pbuh) is telling us in no uncertain terms that the he did not come to nullifythe religion of Moses (pbuh) but to fulfill and confirm it. Jesus(pbuh) had forseen the attempt of mankind to "soften" his religionand make it more "simple". He was warning his followers to havenothing whatsoever to do with such people, not to believe them, and that they would be subject to the wrath of God on the day of judgement.Christian scholars confirm that the very first "Christians" were Unitarian believers in one God (exactly like Muslims today) 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". Gibbon, "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire", II, p. 119. 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".
(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 thatsuch 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. Tertullianand 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 samefacts?". The Nazarenes, John Toland, pp. 73. Jesus (pbuh) himself did indeed foretell of this most tragic situation in the verse of John 16:2-4
"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.". You say "St Paul's letters are a good place to start, since St Paul met with the 12 and would surely know their ideas" What would you say if I were to tell you that "St. Paul" himself swears in the name of God that this never happened?. What would you say if I could demonstrate to you that Saul of Tarsus can noteven keep the narration of his own "conversion" and "salvation" straight?. Would that prove that he was making up his own version of the religion of Jesus (pbuh) as he went along?. If he can notkeep the narration of his own salvation straight then how can we trust him in more critical matters?. The proof of his own admission of fabrication is as follows:If we read Acts 9:19-29 and Acts 26:19-21, we will find that 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:Acts 9:19-29: "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 unknown of Saul. And they watched 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 26:19-21 "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".Contradicted by:Galatians 1:15-23 "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".With regard to the first two passages, Reverend Dr. Davies in "The first Christian", p. 26-32 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 theother 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 himselfand by every test is genuine".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 hetraveled 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 ther 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. He *EXPLICITLY* admits 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" but 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 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 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?. How are we to believehis claims that Jesus (pbuh) came to him in visions and commanded him to utterly destroy everything he had steadfastly observed his whole life?Strange as it may seem, there is a logical explanation for the above contradictions. This explanation is given by Paul himself. He says:
"For if the truth of God has more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?". Romans 3:7.
So Paul is telling his followers that it is necessary for a good Christian to "lie unto God's glory" in order for God's truth to "abound". Truth and morality will never be sufficient to completely establish God's "truth". He is protesting to us that we should not label him a "sinner" merely because he lied unto God's glory, if he had not lied unto God's glory then God's truth would never have been established so fully. Sound logical?.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 haveendured 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 Christians insist on interpretingthe words of Jesus within the context of Paul's teachings.Around the 25th of Sep. 1994 (I forget the exact date), a US newspapers ran an article about a man in California alleged to be the "Thrill" killer. He was accused of killing six people. During his trial he did something totally unexpected. He suddenly jumped up and said three words: "I am guilty". He had not consulted his lawyer and no one had expected this turn of events. Was he thrown in jail?. No. Was he sentenced to the "chair". No!. Well what did happen?. This admitted killer of six people was proclaimed to be mentally incompetent and his testimony could in no way benefit the prosecution. Does this sound like justice?. Does this sound like logic?. Paul himself admits that he had LIED. He does not admit to just any lie but a lie AGAINST GOD'S GLORY. Is he condemned as a heretic?. No. Is he called a blasphemer?. No. Is he burned at the stake?. No!. He is called a "saint". Can any other Christian openly admit to having lied against God's Glory and get away with it?. If a Christian were to jump up in church and shout at the top of his lungs "I have lied against God's Glory!", would the congregation proudly parade him up and down the streets and call him a "saint"?. Would they then burn their Bibles and ask for divine inspiration from him?. Would they "interpret" his "lie" sixty different ways to make it a "good" and "pious" lie?. Would they only interpret the words of Jesus (pbuh) through his words?. Can you picture anyone in their right mind doing such a thing?. Is this how we love God "with all our minds"( Mark 12:30)?.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" .
From "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". From "The Jesus Report", Johannes Lehman, p. 128.Another Christian, Mr. Michael H. Hart, in his book "The 100, a ranking of the most influential persons in history", places Mohammad (pbuh) in first place, next comes Paul, and Jesus (pbuh) after Paul. Like most other Christian scholars besides himself, he recognizes Paul as the 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". (emphasis added).As we can see, this information is not new. It has been well recognised 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 one's inspiration from the Bible to abtaining it from the "Bride of Jesus", the church. Fra Fulgentio, for instance, was once repremanded 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.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. However, a study of those examples will be left to a future article by Allah's will.Also, keep in mind the following admission of "St. Paul":He looks down upon the apostles who accompanied Jesus (pbuh) duringhis mission as misguided, lazy, hypocrites:After the departure of Jesus, circumcision became an issue of personal conflict between the apostle Peter who insisted upon it (It would take too much space to get into this here, by Allah's will this issue will be dealt with in detail in a future article) and Paul who wanted to do away with it (preach to non-Jews also). Galatians 2:7: "I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised".
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: Galatians 2:14
"I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel".
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's version of these matters, his opinion of Paul, as well as what really happened at the cross look for "The Gospel of Barnabas",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. 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 this "vision", otherwise we might have been lead astray by the lazy, misguided, hypocritical apostles.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 Galatians 1:6-9.
"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".The second is 2 Corinthians 11:3-6 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, 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 throughly made manifest among you in all things".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".Paul further that he did not learn his version of Christianity fromthe apostles but was receiving these new and innovative teachings in "visions" from Jesus (pbuh) which were denied the apostles who hadaccompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his ministry:Galatians 1:12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ".
Did Jesus (pbuh) come to Paul in a "vision" and command him to lie against God?. Is God's light so week that it can only be advanced through Paul's lies?. Are Paul's lies so "pious" as to advance God's glory in a manner that would be impossible through truth and light alone?. Is this what Jesus (pbuh) was teaching him in his "visions"?. Is this the religion of God?.It is interesting to note that Paul himself was not even sure about his own "visions". In 2 Corinthians 12:1-5 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 thinot 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.".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, had been commanded by this person to "lie unto God's glory", and had been told to nullify the commandments which Jesus (pbuh) had upheld his whole life, who would you say this described?. Who had I seen?.The Qur'an says:
"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 Qur'an, Lukman(31):21.There is so much more that could be said about this matter, but I have to keep the length of each article under some semblance of control. By Allah's will, much more will be revealed in futurearticles. You say:All I was saying is that, if one needs to interpret so much with respect to the past (the Bible, that is), could one say the Bible is not timeless. And my claim is, the teachings in it are pretty timeless. I didn't claim that only it had the truth. BTW, in your opinion, do you believe that only one religion can be true? I personally believe that all religions have aspects of the truthMuslims are taught that Allah(God) sent messenger to every single nation upon the face of the earth throughout time. This was to ensure that never would there be a time when the religion of God would be totally wiped out by the hands of mankind and be unavailable to those who searched for it."Verily! We have sent you (O Mohammad) with the Truth, a bearer of glad tidings and a warner; and there is not a nation but a warner has passed among them", The Qur'an,Fatir(35):24.Obviously, even if mankind managed to pervert the basic doctrine of God's message, it would still contain some remnants of the original message. Total annihilation would require the complete removal of the religion itself. Thus, we are told that each religion on earth today had it's origins in a true prophet sent by God but was later corrupted by mankind.If you worked at a factory, and you were the foreman of some group of people, and if your boss were to send you a memo telling you:"Be good to the employees, make them work hard but let them play hard too. A content worker is a productive worker. Give them incentives every now and then. Talk kindly to them but if they get out of line cut their pay. Tell them that so long as I am around, I will always look out for them so long as they work hard for me and are industrious".Let us say that one of the employees intercepted this memo before it got to you and made some "corrections" as follows:"Be good to the employees, let them play hard. A content worker is a well-loved worker. Give them incentives every now and then. Talk kindly to them but if they get out of line forgive them. I will be coming over to tell them all of this personally as well as to inform them that they no longer need to do any shred of work. So long as they always smile at each other I will continue to pay their salaries. The days of working for your wages are over. The government only required your predecessors to work for their wages because the British attempted to take our freedom away. However, the government has informed me that it will now pay you directly and will not require any work in return because it loves you. The reason that they can now do this is because they finally have a plant that has broken all records of productivity. They will shut it down and this will balance out the deeds of the British".Would you say, "This message has obviously been modified by someone, but the modifications were most likely in side issues. The fundamental concept of the original has most likely been preserved. This is obvious because it is so full of love and goodness. There is too much goodness in this memo for it to have been written by anyone but our loving boss"?.There is much more to be said about these matters, however, I will have to postpone that to future posts. Once again, stay tuned.Mishealmaalkadh@mailbox.syr.edu
Starting with this article, inshallah, the very founding beliefs of Christianity today will be proven to be innovations of mankind and not the teachings of Jesus (pbuh). The concepts which shall shortly be exposed as fabrications of mankind will include:1) The "Trinity"2) The "Son of God"3) The "initial sin"4) The "atonement"Throughout all of this, the true historical details of when, how, and by whom these concepts were slowly inserted into the religion of Jesus (pbuh) shall be presented. Once again this shall be done by quoting Christian scholars and the Bible only.Goal of these articlesIn the previous articles, it was proven through the words of the Bible and some of history's most knowledgeable *CHRISTIAN* scholars that the Bible has been the object of the tampering fingers of mankind for many centuries now. Many examples were given and many Christian scholars were quoted in this regard. Muslims are told in the Qur'an that Mohammed (pbuh) was prophesied as the last messenger of God for all time by all of God's previous prophets. It was demonstrated how mankind had attempted to warp the words of these prophesies in order to attempt to erase all references to Mohammed (pbuh) from the scriptures. Detailed examples of such attempts were presented and the contradictions resulting from these attempts to hide the truth were presented. Throughout all of this, only the words of the Bible, the words of Christian scholars, and logic were used.In the previous articles, many prophesies of Mohammed (pbuh) were presented, many examples of the tampering fingers of mankind were displayed, detailed proof of the corruption of the Torah of the Jews was shown, and many other topics were discussed. Now it is time to get down to the basic faith of "Christianity" which is claimed to be the teachings of Allah's prophet Jesus (pbuh). Those who follow the church are told to believe that Jesus (pbuh) was the physical son of God. That he was part of a "Trinity". That the "Trinity" is ONE god and not many, or in layman's terms: "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are the same being and not three separate beings". That Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross to relieve mankind of the sin of Adam which they had forcibly inherited and were destined to be thrown in hell for. That Jesus (pbuh) had taught that once a man has "faith" and believes in these concepts then he is destined to go straight to heaven without the need for any real work on his part other than this belief in the actions of Adam and Jesus (peace be upon them).The goal of these articles is simple: To exhibit irrefutable tangible proof that mankind is guilty of tampering with the religion of Jesus (pbuh) after his departure. Fourteen hundred years ago, the holy book of the Muslims, the Qur'an, was sent down upon the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) by God informing him that mankind had dared to change the religion of God which He sent down upon Jesus, Moses, and the previous prophets (peace be upon them all). It has taken close to two thousand years for Christianity to recognize this as a known fact. Today, you would be hard pressed to find a single scholar of Christianity who does not readily acknowledge this as a true scientific fact (A minority of the most adamant conservatives will always be the exception). The evidence is simply too overwhelming to ignore.When I speak of "scholars of Christianity" I mean those people who have dedicate their lives to the pursuit of detailed historical facts regarding the history of the Bible through the unbiased logical study of the countless ancient documents of the Christian empire, the Bible itself, and other methods. These people are found in abundance in the of Christianity" by this definition does not include the "televanglists", the "evangelists", and so forth who have much to lose by recognizing such facts. It has required the bravery and sacrifice of countless such unwavering seekers of truth to bring us this information. In the past, such people were casually put to death without a second thought. Even today, many of them are being fired from their jobs and black-listed for openly speaking about such matters. If they are liars then their lies should be exposed. If there is some truth to what they say, then such selfless dedication and vigilance against those who would distort the word of God should not be allowed to go unrecognized. For this reason we will study the details of their findings in these articles.The claims of the Muslims as taught in the holy Qur'an are:1) That Muhammad (pbuh) was the last in a long and distinguished line of prophets sent by God.2) That in the past, whenever a prophet of God would pass away, his people would begin to corrupt the religion of God until it would become so corrupt that it would be necessary for God to send a new prophet to return them to His true religion which was sent down upon their previous prophets.3) That a pocket of unscrupulous people had managed to change the religion of Moses (pbuh) after his death, thus God sent Jesus (pbuh), in order to return them to the religion of Moses (pbuh). Similarly, a pocket of mankind managed to change the religion of Jesus (pbuh) after his departure and so it was necessary for God to send Muhammad (pbuh).4) That God is one god. The "trinity" is a fabrication of mankind. God has no sons, no parents, nor any equal.5) Jesus (pbuh) was not a god but only an very elect, but human, messenger of God.6) God does not hold anyone responsible for anyone else's sin. He is also a merciful God who forgives without requiring a price for His mercy.7) Only a person's own actions and worship in this life will decide their final reward.8) God has specifically molded Islam to be His final message to all of mankind without exception. It supersedes all previous messages from Him. For this reason, this time God himself has promised to preserve His final message from the tampering fingers of mankind.Muslims are taught that throughout the ages, God sent messengers to all tribes and nations all over the earth beginning with Adam (pbuh), the first prophet of God. Every time a messenger of God would pass away, his people would begin to fall back on their evil deeds until a few generations later they would have managed to have completely corrupted His original message to them. When His message was in danger of being completely obliterated by these people, He would chose from among them a new messenger to receive the original, uncorrupted message and convey it to them. Some of them would listen. Others would not. However, the message would always be available for those who wanted it. In this manner, God made sure that all of mankind would always have access to His true religion, no matter where or when they lived. It would then be up to them to seek out this knowledge. Muslims are further taught that each messenger was sent only to his own people. His message was then fine-tuned to suit them. Thus, the basic message would be the same for all messengers: "God is one!, Worship Him alone!". However, the details of each people's worship would be molded to suit their lifestyle, state of knowledge, and so forth. This was also true for Jesus (pbuh). Jesus (pbuh) was sent specifically to the Jews, and only to the Jews. It shall be demonstrated how one of the most fundamental reasons which lead up to the corruption of his message was that those who came after him attempted to force his religion upon those who it was never intended for: The Greeks. The Greek's hatred of the Jews and all Jewish practices was one of the foremost reasons why the religion of Jesus (pbuh) ended up being modified to suit their preconceived picture of "God", and "worship".The previous and future articles will by Allah's will demonstrates how the corruption of the religion of Jesus (pbuh) progressed in the following stages:1) Jesus (pbuh) came to show the Jews how their religion had been changed from that preached to them by Moses and their previous prophets (pbut).2) Jesus (pbuh) called the Jews back to the true religion of God sent down upon their previous messengers. Jesus (pbuh) himself observed every single aspect of the religion of Moses (pbuh) steadfastly and uncompromisingly. He fasted as Moses (pbuh) fasted, he worshipped as Moses (pbuh) worshipped, he refrained from tasting a single pig, he believed in circumcision and himself was circumcised, he observed the Sabbath, never having violated it. Up until the crucifixion, never once did he deviate from the actions of a true follower of the religion of Moses (pbuh). He commanded his followers to follow the religion of Moses (pbuh) and threatened severe retribution from God for all who would forsake a single aspect of this religion.3) Jesus (pbuh) departed from this earth and his apostles continued to follow his teachings religiously. They too followed the religion of Moses (pbuh) as Jesus (pbuh) had done before them and commanded them to do. For the first three hundred years after the departure of Jesus (pbuh), "Christians" would merely be Jews who believed that Jesus (pbuh) was the Messiah. For the first three decades after the departure of Jesus (pbuh), his followers would continue to worship in the synagogues of the Jews and observe all of the aspects of the religion of Moses (pbuh) without exception.4) A little after the departure of Jesus (pbuh), a Jew named Saul of Tarsus persecutes Jesus' followers severely and kills them. He has never met Jesus (pbuh) in person.5) Suddenly Saul claims to be receiving "visions" from Jesus (pbuh). He befriends the apostle Barnabas until he manages to replace his reputation as a persecutor and killer of Christians with a reputation as a true convert.6) Now Saul parts ways with the apostle of Jesus (pbuh), Barnabas, and decides to preach to the Greeks. He claims that the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) are lazy, misguided, hypocrites. He claims that it was necessary for him to constantly guide the apostles out of their ignorance into the truth of God which he was receiving in his "visions". The Greeks hated the Jews with such a passion that he found it all but impossible to convince them to accept the Judaism that Jesus (pbuh) practiced his whole life and taught his apostles to carry on after him.7) Saul finds it necessary to "simplify" the religion for the Greeks and make it more acceptable for them.8) Saul continues to simply the religion and mold it closer and closer to the Greek's established beliefs until all that is left is "faith" without work. He then goes on to justify this doctrine of "faith" and give it credibility by claiming that Jesus (pbuh) was not merely a normal human being but a "son of God" and that this "son of God" died in atonement for the sins of all mankind. In this manner, he manages to convince the Greeks (and other Gentiles) to accept the simplified "religion of Jesus". This is because, unlike the Jews, their religion already accepts "trinities", and "father gods" and "son gods", and the death of gods, and the resurrection of gods, and the incarnation of gods, and divine savior gods, and the eating of the flesh of gods, and the drinking of the blood of gods...etc. All of these concepts are old news to them. He becomes a great leader among them and is named "Saint Paul".9) "Saint Paul" now writes extensively and gains more and more "converts".10) Once his converts begin to exceed the number of converts to the more strict and demanding religion of the apostles of Jesus (pbuh), they begin to kill the followers of the apostles and persecute them.11) The followers of "Saint Paul" are challenged to prove their claims of "son of God", "initial sin", ..etc. through the scriptures and prove that Jesus (pbuh) or God had anything to do with them. They cannot. There are too many verses which declare that there is only ONE God in existence and that He does not hold mankind responsible for the sin of any man. Examples of these verses are available to this day (e.g. Isaiah 43:10-11, Ezekiel 18:19-20, Deuteronomy 24:16...etc.). Thus, it becomes necessary for them to create a "Trinity" so that they can have three Gods but claim that they only worship one. The ancient "trinities" of Greek philosophy are redefined and applied to God almighty in order to define this new doctrine of "three gods in one". Once again, the "Trinity" they borrowed from their ancient paganism could not be proven through the Bible, so it became necessary for them to receive divine "inspiration" from God commanding them to "clarify" their Bible so that the "trinity" could be seen clearly (such as 1 John 5:7). These "clarifications" would only be discovered by the scholars of Christianity centuries later. They would later provide irrefutable proof of how, when, and by whom these "clarifications" were inserted into the Bible.12) In the fourth century CE., the followers of the "trinity" manage to enlist the aid of the pagan Roman empire. They wield the power of this pagan nation to "cleanse" the earth of the "heretical" and "blasphemous" followers of the apostles. They later launch campaigns of "inquiry" to "convert" them.13) "Trinitarian" beliefs become the only truly correct religion of Jesus (pbuh). The writings of Paul are collected and today they form the majority of the books of the new testament. The books of the apostles are burned. They are all "apocryphal" lies. Even Gospels which were considered by the very first Christians "canonical" and authentic, were slowly purged out of the Bible and labeled "apocryphal". Those who are found concealing the books of the apostles are burned to death with their books. Paul's followers obtain copies of the Gospels of the apostles. They copy them but with drastic modifications to the doctrine found therein. They claim that the apostles wrote them. These books are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The additions to these books will continue for many more centuries. Only centuries later will Christian scholars begin to see the evidence that the claimed authors did not write these books.14) Muhammad (pbuh) is born. He follows the religion of Abraham (pbuh) which was handed down to him and all Arabs from the father of the Arabs, Ishmael, the eldest son of Abraham (pbut). Upon reaching the age of 40, God sends the angel Gabriel to him to teach him His final message, the message of Islam. He tells him that the "people of the book" have changed the religion of Jesus (pbuh) and have altered it from a religion of submission to one God to a religion where multiple gods are being worshipped. He is told that he will be the last messenger to mankind and that his message is to be directed to all of mankind including the Jews and Christians.15) The Jews and "Christians" claim that Muhammad (pbuh) is a liar and a false prophet. He has just copied the Bible in order to write his Qur'an. Just as the Jews refused to accept Jesus (pbuh) as a true messenger of God, so too do both the Jews and the Christians refuse to believe
Muhammad (pbuh).16) Muhammad (pbuh) passes away. The Trinitarians continue with their burning at the stake any Christian who opposes the "trinity" or openly speaks about the discrepancies in the Bible. They launch campaigns of "inquiry" to cleanse the earth of all remnants of believers in one (monotheistic) god. The sentences of death by these inquisitions become so unbounded in their nature that whole nations are sentenced to death. Just one single holy decree of the Trinitarian church in 1568 would later condemn THREE MILLION men women and children from the Netherlands to the scaffold as heretics in one fell swoop. No cry of "holocaust" would be raised for these poor people, they would simply be erased from history.17) The Church loses it's power to the scientists and is pushed into a dark corner. Without the threat of death hanging over their heads, countless Christian scholars begin to publish countless thousands of books exhibiting detailed examples of contradicting verses and evidence of modification to the Bible. The ancient manuscripts of the Christian society are studied in detail and slowly, the previous picture begins to come together. Countless excuses are made by the church and those who's livelihood and power depend on these established beliefs. They now begin to give practically every single verse of the Bible "abstract" meanings. They tell their flock to have blind faith. They convince their flock that they can not understand the Bible without the "interpretation" of the church. They tell their flock that Jesus (pbuh) never means what he says and that every reference he makes to following the religion of Moses (pbuh) is not meant to be taken "literally" but was meant by Jesus (pbuh) to have "hidden" meanings totally in opposition to the obvious meanings. Only they can tell you what these "hidden" meanings of Jesus (pbuh) were.18) Copies of the original Gospels of the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) begin to surface. They are found, of all places, hidden away in the capital of Christianity, the Vatican itself. These Gospels (Such as the "Gospel of Barnabas", or the "Shepherd of Hermas") have never fallen into the hands of Muslims and were written long before the birth of Muhammad (pbuh), yet they confirm practically every single one of the claims of the Qur'an, including the fact that Jesus (pbuh) is not God, and that a messenger would be coming after him from the descendants of Ishmael (The father of the Arabs). Copies of these books have a tendency to disappear mysteriously.Muslims are told that when God created mankind, He gave them "The Choice". They were told that they could either live their lives then die and fade out of the picture, like the animals do. Or they could elect to be held accountable for their actions. If they accepted the accountability, then the potential reward will be great. The potential retribution would be equally great.With mankind's acceptance of this accountability came their free will. God gave mankind a free will to chose to either worship Him or to disobey Him. Out of God's infinite mercy, He then assisted mankind with many factors in order to guide them to His true path and the ultimate reward. Firstly, He sent the messengers. In this manner, no matter how much mankind tried to corrupt His religion, it would always be available to those who searched for it.Secondly, He supplied mankind with minds. He gave them these minds in order to be able to distinguish between right and wrong using logic. If they see someone worshipping fire, and they see that the fire can not hear their prayers nor answer their calls, then no matter how much these fire-worshippers "spititualize" their worship and tell them of the great miracles the fire has worked for them and how it has answered their prayers, and how it "loves" them so, and how it provides warmth and protection for them, their logic will refuse to believe their concoctions.Finally, God gave mankind an inborn sense called "Fitrah". This "Fitrah" is the small voice inside each one of us which tells us "this doesn't feel right". When we pick up a gun for the first time in order to kill someone, we have to fight mightily in order to overcome our "fitrah" which tells us that killing is wrong. In a similar manner, all mankind is born automatically knowing that "God is one". They must really fight themselves for a long time and be continually persuaded by those who are around them to believe otherwise. This is how they end up worshipping fire, stones, statues, multiple gods, and other things. It is forced upon them in spite of their "fitrah" as they grow up.This series goes back to the arguments of the original apostles. We will start with the "Trinity" and work our way backwards through history. We will see that there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for the "trinity" in the Bible. Once the "trinity" has been disproved we will see how the rest of these fabricated beliefs will unravel one by one till we return to the original teaching of Jesus (pbuh). This will demonstrate why the church teaches their flock that they can never understand the Bible unless the Church "explains" it to them. We hope you will find this information illuminating.Stay tuned for the proof......Misheal Al-Kadhi Proof that the "Trinity" is a fabrication of mankind The "domino" syndrome: As promised in part 10, we shall now move on, by God's will, to the first stage of what shall henceforth be referred to as "The domino syndrome". The Domino syndrome consists of the demonstration of how the innovations foisted upon the religion of Jesus (peace be upon him) by the tampering fingers of mankind after the departure of Jesus (pbuh) are all based upon the myth of the "Trinity" which mankind concocted in the third century AD We shall start with this myth and show how there is not a single verse in the whole Bible which validates this concoction. This shall (inshallah) be proven through the words of the Bible itself and some of Christendom's most eminent scholars only. It shall be demonstrated (inshallah) in this and the coming articles how once the "trinity" is discarded, the rest of the fabrications will immediately follow suit. This will include such fabrications as "The Son of God", "The initial sin", and "The atonement". The true historical facts surrounding these matters shall also be presented and the true history of the Christian nation both during the lifetime of Jesus (pbuh) and then immediately after his departure will be presented, once again from the writings of eminent Christian scholars only and the words of the Bible itself. First some ground rules: First: "Blind faith" or "Prove all things"?: Before actually getting down to the proof, let us first establish the ground rules. The Bible in our hands today tells 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 most members of the clergy, Jesus (pbuh) did not want his followers to believe everything they were told on "blind faith", but 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 (pbuh), and see where the truth and our minds will lead us: Second: The true teachings of Jesus(pbuh): The three monotheistic religions -- 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 stresses by Moses 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 when he said "...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29) Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again:
"And your God is One God:
there is no God but He" (The Qur'an, al-Bakarah(2):163) Christianity has digress 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 coming articles inshallah, or get a copy of the book "What did Jesus really say?"). This doctrine, which continues to be the source of controversy both within and without 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. Christian sects are many and varied. However, the majority of Christians around the world believe in the following four basic concepts:
1) The Trinity.
2) The divine Sonship of Jesus (pbuh).
3) The initial sin. and
4) The Death of "the son of God" on the cross in atonement for the original sin of Adam.
Everything else is pretty much relegated into the background. A Christian can be saved and enter heaven by simply believing in the above creeds. According to St. Paul, the previous law and commandments of God are worthless, this simple belief will guarantee for all comers a place in heaven "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law".
Romans 3:28. Christianity as it currently stands is the interpretation of St. Paul of what he personally thinks that Christianity should be. Muslims are told that the message of Jesus (pbuh) was directed towards the Jews alone as verified in the Bible (Matthew 15:24 "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"). The verses wherein he is claimed to have told his disciples to preach to the whole world are now recognized as later insertions (we will get into this in a little more detail in the future). God almighty never intended for it to become the religion of the masses as He intended Islam to be. There is much internal evidence in the Bible to support this claim. 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 initial sin, or an atonement. He never asked anyone to worship him, neither did he ever claim to be part of a trinity or anything else. 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 they would have to claim that God is a sadistic and torturous God). 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 (Luke 18:18-24, Matthew 19:16-21, John 14:15, John 15:10). Not once did he himself ever mention an initial sin or a redemption. Even when pressed for the path to "PERFECTION" he only told his followers to sell their belongings. He departed leaving his followers with the very dire threat: Matthew 5:18-19
"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".
Obviously, heaven and earth have not yet passed. The fact that you are reading this 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 us. 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), comes along. After a lifetime of persecuting the followers of Jesus (pbuh) and killing them, Paul "sees the light", receives a "vision" from Jesus (pbuh), and takes it upon himself to explain what Jesus really meant. Paul claims that the law of God 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 initial sin, the atonement, the divine Sonship ...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". In the past, we have posed the following points to Christian clergy: 1) According to you, Jesus is supposed to have been prepared for the "atonement" from the beginning of time. He should know that it is coming. 2) Whenever he was asked about the path to "eternal life" (i.e. Luke 18:18-24 ..etc.) he consistently told his followers to only "keep the commandments" just as he had "kept my father's commandments" ..etc. 3) Even when he was pressed for more, he only told his followers that to be *PERFECT* they need only sell their belongings. 4) Not once did he mention an "atonement" or an "initial sin". 5) The commandments he spoke about were the commandments of Moses and not some "spiritual" commandments. This can be seen in the text itself where Jesus (pbuh) explicitly spells out some of the commandments of Moses one by one. 6) St. Paul, a disciple of a disciple, is the one who is followed by Christianity and not Jesus. Jesus' teachings are explained within the context of Paul's words and not vice versa. Whenever we presented these points to a member of the Christian clergy we would always be greeted with a response such as "Well, uh...... Don't take Jesus' words literally ..uh......". Third: The fabrication of the "Trinity": The myth of the "trinity" as originally fabricated four centuries after the departure of Jesus (see historical details in future articles) and taught to Christians ever since is the merging of three entities into one while remaining three distinct entities. In other words: Three bodies fold, or 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". The first definition of the Trinity was put forth in the fourth century as follows: "...we worship on 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 Christians speak of worship, God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are claimed to be one being. Otherwise they would have to explain such verses as Isaiah 43:10-11: "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 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" or Jesus (pbuh) which has begotten, but a distinctly separate being from the other two.... there are many such examples. From the Bible's standpoint: When Christians are asked to present a verse of the Bible validateing the "trinity" they usually jump directly at such verses as Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14...etc., to "verify" the "Trinity". What is happening here is that they usually do not completely comprehend what is being asked of them. When someone askes for a verse of the Bible which validates the "Trinty" what he is asking for is a verse which claims that "Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost are three gods, but they are not SEPARATE gods, but ONE single god". Some people are so bent on seeing a "trinity" everywhere they look that they do not bother to actually read the verse they are quoting. Just because the words "God", "Jesus", and "Holy Ghost" appear in one verse does not mean this verse requires a "trinity". Even if this verse also contains the word "one" this still does not necessarily require a "trinity". If I say "Joe, Jim, and Frank speak one language" this is not the same as saying "Joe, Jim, and Frank are one person". Let us clarify this with examples: 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 President George Bush told General Norman Schwartscopff 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 are one physical entity?. They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are merged into one physical entity. Also remember that 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 have already begun to see in previous articles, 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 in his book For Christ's sake (pp. 102): "All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later". 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 different kinds of gifts, but the same Santa Claus. There are different kinds of service, but the same Government. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men". Do God, the U.S. Government and Santa Claus now form another "trinity"?. The same verse which moments ago required a "trinity" magically can now be understood without the need for a trinity. Is it impossible to receive "gifts", "services", and "works" except from ONE person?. Once again, we see that many people do not bother to actually read the verses in front of them. They are told to see trinities so they see trinities. 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 there was 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?. Think about it. 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 Freud, and the strength of Schwarzenegger be with you all" does this require all three to be joined in a "trinity"?. An interesting point is that when people try to force a "trinity" upon a certain verse of the Bible they always do it with the New Testament and not the Old Testament. Why is that?. 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?. Think about it. 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, we find that for a matter of such profound importance, the "trinity" is never mentioned in the Bible at all. Sound preposterous?. Read on. First verse: The verse most often quoted by almost every Christian around the world in defense of the "trinity" 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 we were asking for. However, this verse is now universally recognized as being an "insertion" and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version ...etc. Have 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 they were added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Dr. 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 decided to "inspire" someone to insert this verse in order to "clarify" the "true" nature of God as being a "trinity". Notice that 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 previous articles). If these people were being "inspired" by God then why did they need to put these words into other people's mouths. 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?. It was Sir Isaac Newton who made public this forged insertion:
"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". Gibbon, "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire", IV, p. 418. 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 30 in the table of part 6 of this series) 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 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 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. Which is more important to Christian faith, the "trinity" or the description of an ass?. Second verse: Another verse quoted in defense of the "trinity" is the verse of John 1:1: "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD". 1) First of all, these words are acknowledged by every erudite Christian scholar of the Bible as the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria, who claimed no divine inspiration for them, and who had written them long before John or Jesus (pbut) were born. 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". 2) 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."?????. 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 speaks of him as a different person. 3) 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, many decades before the fourth Gospel was written. 4) C.J. Cadoux writes in "The life of Jesus":
"The speeches in the fourth Gospel (even apart from the earlier messianic claim) are so different from those in the Synoptics, and so like the comments of the Fourth evangelist himself, that both cannot be equally reliable as records of what Jesus said: Literary veracity in ancient times did not forbid, as it does now, the assignment of fictitious speeches to historical characters: the best ancient historians made a practice of composing and assigning such speeches this way". 5) Even if we are to take this verse as authentic, then we must notice the following: In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did John speak Greek?), the first occurrence of the word "God" is the Greek word (Hotheos) which means "The God", or "God" with a capital "G" to denote a proper noun. The second occurrence of the word "God" is the Greek (Tontheos) meaning "a god", or "god" (any god, not necessarily the almighty). So, if the translators were consistent in their translation, they would have written the above verse as follows: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording). If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word is used to describe the devil, however, now the system has dishonestly been reversed: "(and the devil is) the god of this world". 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 "God" with a capital "G". If Paul was inspired to use the same word to describe the devil, then why should we change it?. Why is this word translated as simply a "god" when referring to the devil, but translated as the almighty "God" when referring to a "word"?. Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?. The apologists always manage to conveniently side-step this issue by conveniently forgetting the Hotheos/Tontheos problem and never mentioning a valid explanation for why *ONE* word was translated *TWO* different ways in two different verses, but rather, they say "I don't personally like the New World Translation of the Bible, thus, everything you say is wrong".
Even if you do not like the New World Translation, you still have not explained the selective translation!. This is blind faith talking here. One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands today is that it forces us to look at a Jewish book and the Jewish language itself through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called "original" manuscripts available today are written in Greek. The Jews had no trouble reading such verses as Psalms 82:6:
"I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"
or Exodus 7:1: "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh" 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 part 9 and future articles) which has led to this misunderstanding of the verses. If I were an American, and I were to tell the citizens of China "Hit the road men", we would more than likely find countless people beating the street with sticks. Did they understand the words?. Yes!. Did they understand the meaning?. No!. 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. 6) In the Qur'an we are told that when God almighty wills something he merely says to it "BE" and it is. 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, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth".
Remember, the words between brackets are those of some commentator and not those of the original author. Third verse: The third verse which Christians claim validates the doctrine of the trinity is the verse of John 10:30: "I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE". This verse, however is quoted out of context. The complete passage -starting with John 10:23- reads as follows: John 10:23-30 "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". In divinity?. In a holy "trinity"?. No!. They are one in PURPOSE. Just as no one shall pluck them out of Jesus' hand, so shall no one pluck them out of God's hand. Need more proof?. Then read John 17:20-22:
"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".
Is all of mankind also part of the "trinity"?. Forth verse: Well, what about the verse "He that hath seen me hath seen the father". Let us look at the context: John 14:8-9
"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?".
Philip wanted to see God with his own eyes, but this is impossible since no one can ever do that (John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time", see also 1 John 4:12...etc.), 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".
If we want to insist that when Philip saw Jesus (pbuh), he had actually physically seen God "the father", 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 John 6:46
"Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father".
Who is this who "is of God" you ask?.
Let us once again ask the Bible: John 8:47 "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God". And 3 John 1:11 "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".
Have all people who have done good also physically seen God?. Such terminology can be found in many other places, read for example 1 Corinthians 6:15-17
"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",
and also Ephesians 4:6 "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all". In the New Catholic Encyclopedia (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating official approval) we read:"......The formulation 'One God in three persons' was not solidly established into Christian life and it's profession of faith until prior to the end of the *FOURTH* century. But it is precisely this formulation that has the first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. AMONG THE APOLISTIC FATHERS, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (emphasis added). So JESUS' TWELVE APOSTLES HAD NEVER HEARD OF ANY "TRINITY" 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.". From the Qur'an's standpoint: "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 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 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 Qur'an, Al-Anbia(21):20.
Think about it. If there were more than one God in existence, and one wanted you to do one thing and the other wanted you to do another then which one would have his way?. If one wanted the sun to come out of the West and the other wanted it to come out of the East then which one would win?. Verse such as Mark 14:36, and Matthew 26:39 clearly exhibit that God "The father" and God "the son" both have distinct wills. Further, we read: "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 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 hymneth his praise; but you understand not their praise. Lo! He is ever Clement, Forgiving".
The 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 protecting friend through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence". The 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 Qur'an, Al-Muminoon(23):91-92. Think of the fairytales of the "Gods" of the Roman empire and the "Gods" of the Greeks. These "Gods" were constantly at odds with each other and declaring war against each other and it was mankind that was always caught in the middle. From a logical standpoint: If Jesus (pbuh) is part of a divine trinity which makes up the essence of God almighty, and Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross, then what happened to God almighty? (Remember, Christians claim that they pray to one "triune" god and not three separate gods). Did the trinity die?. Did it continue to exist in a severely crippled form?. 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 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". Remember when Jesus (pbuh) is alleged to have died (Luke 23:46: "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")?. 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 (otherwise Christians would have to admit to worshipping multiple gods), 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 and gone down into hell to be tortured for three days. However, this verse tells us a completely different story. It claims that Jesus' soul was somewhere other than already with God (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 uncomprehendable, 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 the author of confusion"
1 Corinthians 14:33. When Jesus (pbuh) allegedly went to hell for three days, did the trinity die then reside in hell also, or was a third of the trinity ripped away from the whole, then killed and tortured in hell while the remaining two thirds (of God?) remained in it's crippled form outside hell?. Who was overseeing the heavens and the earth while all of this was happening?. A crippled trinity?. No one?. If it is possible for one third of the "trinity" to die independently of the other three then it becomes obvious that they are separate and independent and not ONE God, this contradicts Isaiah 43:10-11. However, if they are indeed ONE God then the death of this one God contradicts many verses such as Jeremiah 10:10 "But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king". Also, if the giver of life is dead then who shall bring Him back to life?. 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 (however 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 concocted in 325 AD when the trinity was first defined requires the co-eternity of God and Jesus (pbuh) (see rest of series). There are many such questions to be raised about this supposed trinity which defy logic. 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"?. We are speaking about the logic of Jesus (pbuh) here and not blind faith. Jesus is beseeching to us to use our minds but we would rather follow others who demand blind faith. Jesus (pbuh) tells us that "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). If the Trinity designates god as being three separate entities - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and if God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical (see below). 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 of them 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. 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. Fourth: What is a "Trinity"?:In the above historical analysis (more details shall be presented in coming articles by Allah's will), we learned that in 325AD., the Trinitarian church 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 Nicaea. 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. We will provide 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: John 14:28 "... my Father is greater than I". Obviously if God is greater than Jesus (pbuh) then they can not be equal. We also read: Mark 13:32 "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father". 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. (Note: before the begetting, was God a "Duality"?) Co-substantiality:First go back and read the comments on co-equality and co-eternity. Next, remember when Jesus 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 Luke 23:46:
"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."?.
If Jesus and God were one substance then Jesus (pbuh) would not need to send his spirit to God because it is part of God, who is also Jesus. Remember 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"?.
If Jesus and God were one substance then this ONE substance must only have ONE will. Remember Matthew 27:46
"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?"?.
If Jesus and God are one substance then how can ONE substance forsake itself?. ....... and on and on. 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 which composes Him. Go to your local library and you will find countless books on this topic. THIS is why blind faith was demanded, and THIS is why millions of Christians were put to death as heretics. The matter of the "Trinity", however, can not be completely analyzed by tackling such verse only. It is necissary to also tackle the verses which alegidly place Jesus (pbuh) in the position of the "Son of God". Those verses will, by Allah's will, be tackled in the comming article. Stay tuned. Misheal Al-Kadhi
Proof that the "The son of God" is a fabrication of mankind In the previous articles, it was proven through the words of the Bible and some of history's most knowledgeable *CHRISTIAN* scholars that the Bible has been the object of the tampering fingers of mankind for many centuries now. Many examples were given and many Christian scholars were quoted in this regard. In the previous articles, many prophesies of Mohammed (pbuh) were presented, many examples of the tampering fingers of mankind were displayed, detailed proof of the corruption of the Torah of the Jews was shown, and many other topics were discussed. In the last article it was demonstrated how the myth of the "Trinity" is a fabrication and is nowhere to be found in the Bible. It was further demonstrated through the words of eminent Christian scholars how many attempts at forging false verses were attempted by the church and were inserted into the Bible in order to validate their doctrine. It was shown through their own words how they now recognize these facts and are starting to make an honest attempt to purify the Bible from these insertions and forgeries and return to the original words of Jesus (pbuh). Now that the "Trinity" has been proven to be the forgery it is, it is now necessary to display how the rest of the fabricated beliefs will fall apart one by one through the "domino syndrome" mentioned in the previous article. Many people have over the centuries recognized part of this truth, however, the majority of them have usually been unable to take their findings all the way to the complete truth. Many people know the historical details of how the "Trinity" was first concocted and inserted into the Bible, so they refuse to believe in it. However, they do not realize *WHY* the "Trinity" needed to be concocted in the first place. Once a person begins to study the reasons behind the fabrication of the "Trinity" they will come to realize that the "Trinity" is only the final block placed in the elaborate structure the Trinitarians had built up around the original message of Jesus (pbuh). The "Trinity" is actually the final piece of duct-tape used by the followers of Paul to hold their concoction together. In the previous article we had exposed this concoction for the fabrication it is (By Allah's will, the actual historical details will be displayed in upcoming articles). In effect, we knocked over the first domino. Let us see how far this string of dominos will now stretch. 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 Beneficent 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 Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):40. 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. 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 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 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 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". The Bible, 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?. Many Christians like to tell Muslims about how Jesus (pbuh) was "begotten" by God. Let us start out be first quoting the West's own unbiased Websters 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. Muslims are not the only ones who believe that Jesus (pbuh) is mortal and not a god. The Jews also believe this, in addition to *THE VERY FIRST* groups of Christianity such as the Ebonites, the Cerinthians, the Basilidians, the Capocratians, and the Hypisistarians. The Arians, Paulicians and Goths also accepted Jesus (pbuh) as a prophet of God. Even in the modern age there are churches in Asia, in Africa, the Unitarian church, the Jehovah's witnesses, and even the majority of today's Anglican Bishops do not worship Jesus (pbuh) as God. 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". "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. "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. "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. If there was no god formed 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. How many "Sons" does God have? Many people will now complain "but the Bible clearly says that Jesus is the Son of God". Well then, how many sons does God almighty have?. The Bible tells us that 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 ismy 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. Even common people 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. Well then, is Jesus the only begotten son of God?. Read Psalms 2:7 "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (David the king), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee". When the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus (pbuh) he defended himself with the words of John 10:34: "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...." 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. 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 chapter 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. Do Christians emphasize this aspect of Jesus?. The New Testament Greek word used for "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 others in some translations of the Bible. Muslims are told that Jesus (pbuh) was a human being, not a god. They are told that 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" (emphasis added). Is Jesus (pbuh) a divine son of God because God is his "father"?. Let us read Matthew 5:45
"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven..." and
Matthew 5:48:"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." ...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,
John 8:44: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do".
Obviously neither the Devil nor God is the physical father of any of them. Miracles: Well then, is Jesus the son of God because he raised the dead?. If so, then what about Ezekiel who raised many more dead bodies than Jesus ever did. Ezekiel 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 stopped the sun and moon for one whole day: (Joshua 10:12-13). Can anyone but God almighty do this?. Elisha 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 raised the dead, and made a bowl of flour and a jar of oil 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 on and on...... 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 (in the stable) and an end ("and he gave up the ghost") Melchizedec, however, had no beginning of days nor end of life. Hebrews 7:3. Solomon was with God at the beginning of time before all of creation, Proverbs 8:22-31. What is the sign of "Godliness"? 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".
Also, Luke 1:41 "Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost".
And, Acts 4:8 "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost said". Also Acts 13:9 "Then Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.".
How about Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak".
We could go on and on.
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. 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". Some will now say: But in 2 Corinthians 4:4 we read "....Christ, who is the image of God". Surely this makes Jesus God. Well then, why not read Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them". 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 John 17:14 "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"
and John 17:16 "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world". There are many other examples. Now, do gods pray?. Let us read Mark 14:32
"and he (Jesus) saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray".
Also, 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".
And, 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".
Further, 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".
These verses do not speak of Jesus (pbuh) interceding, or consorting, or consulting, but PRAYING. 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. They pray the way Jesus (pbuh) did. Have you ever seen a Christian "fall on his face" and pray as Jesus, Muhammad (pbut), 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. All of mankind are the servants of God. If a man were to own another man then that man would be his servant. Obviously this servant would be held in a lower regard than this man's own children. We do not usually find people telling their sons: "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".
Further, in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Acts 3:13 reads: "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac,.... hath glorified his servant Jesus". and Acts 4:27(RSV): "For of a truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hast anointed...". The Actual Greek word used is "pais" or "paida" which mean; "servant, child, son, manservant". Some translations of the Bible have translated this word as "son" when it is attributed to Jesus (pbuh) and "servant" for most everyone else (such as the King James Version), while more recent translations of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version (compiled from the "most" ancient manuscripts) now honestly translate it as "servant". 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 David the king 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), NOW it is translated as "SON". This fact is further emphasized by Jesus (pbuh) in John 20:17: "Jesus saith unto her, ....I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". 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. 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 part 11 of this series) which includes the words: "..Co-equality.." in it's definition (see part 11). However, if they are not two separate gods, but ONE god, as claimed by the Christians and Mr. J, then is Jesus (pbuh) praying to himself?. Is, for instance, his mind praying to his soul?. Matthew 11:11 "Verily I (Jesus) say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist". Not even Jesus?. Jesus (pbuh) was born of a woman. Job 25:4: "How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?". Once again, Jesus (pbuh) was born of a woman. Shall we now apply this to him?. Not as far as Muslims are concerned. Luke 2:52 says: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature.......".
and Hebrews 5:8 "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered".
If Jesus is God, 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 God is a "Trinity" with three faces: God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost (required by Isaiah 43:10-11), then is Jesus (pbuh) learning obedience to another side of his own personality?. But Christians will insist 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 and destined for hell. Till recently, unbaptized infants were not buried in consecrated ground because they were believed to have died on the 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 Matthew 19:14 "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven". (see also Mark 10:14, and Luke18:16). 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 initial sin. Once again, the teachings of Islam. 2) All the millennia of previous prophets (Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Noah, ...etc.) and their people are all condemned to eternal Hellfire simply because Jesus, the alleged "son of God", was not born yet. 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). In Romans 5:14, 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 4:2: "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath reason to boast; but not before God".
Did Abraham or any of the other prophets ever preach the "crucifixion"?. Did they preach the "Trinity"?. We are 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?. 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 enter into heaven 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 the only way into heaven was the acceptance of a sacrifice that would not occur till many hundreds of years after their death, 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 say ye, Why? doth not 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 "initial sin" and "redemption". It clearly states that all mankind is not held accountable by God almighty for the sin of Adam. Also read Deuteronomy 24:16 "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.". And Jeremiah 31:29-30: "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". And Ezekiel 18:1-9: "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" 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". Even Jesus himself says: "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" Matthew 9:13.
Also read Isaiah 46:9: "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me", Deuteronomy 4:35: "the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him",
Deuteronomy 32:39: "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me",
1 Kings 8:60: "That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else", Isaiah 44:8: "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any",
Isaiah 45:5: "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 45:21: "and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me", Isaiah 45:22: "I am God, and there is none else". 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.
"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". Matthew 19:16-17. Jesus (pbuh) refutes that he is even "good". This is a characteristic of a MAN. When you complement a man, and this man is humble, he will say: "why are you complementing me?. I am not so good, I am just a humble man.". This is how good and decent men speak. However, if Jesus (pbuh) is God then he must claim to be good. This is because God is ultimate good. If God claims not to be good then he will be a hypocrite and a liar which is impossible. 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: "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.
As well as Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned". Romans 3:28: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law". 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. 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 2:14,20 emphasizes that: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?...............But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?". It comes down to this: Who's words carry more weight with us, Jesus or Paul?. 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 initial 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"?. 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 him to echo the teachings of Paul who 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 logic?. Notice how Paul claims that "NO" flesh shall be justified by the works of the law. "NO" means "None". Paul makes no exceptions whatsoever here. What this means is that even the young man who Jesus told to "keep the commandments" and to sell his belongings can not be justified by simply following these commands of Jesus (pbuh). Did Jesus (pbuh) then forget to remind this young man that he can not be justified by following his command, keeping the commandments, and selling his belongings?. Also remember our comments about the prophets of God. Are they all going to hell?. Does any Christian today place the same emphasis on the commandments the their "Lord" Jesus (pbuh) that the Bible states he did, and died doing?. No!. Christianity has now been "spiritualized" by Paul, and the path to heaven is now through a single trivial belief that Jesus (pbuh) himself never even mentioned, while the commands of Jesus have now been totally ignored. 7) If a man were to steal from my home in New York city, and the police were to capture him. If I were to then say: "I am a very jealous man!. I want you to not only place this man in jail, but all of his kinfolk in Ohio, Kansas, California, and China are to be placed in jail with him. I want the child which is in his pregnant wife's womb to also be condemned to life imprisonment as well as all his future generation till the end of time, which are all to live and die in jail". Would this be called heavenly justice?. Should I then be called the most just man on earth?. When Paul alleges that God holds all of humanity responsible for the single sin of one man (Romans 5:12), is this justice?. Is this our perception of God?. Continuing our example, if I were to come after about forty years -after many of these people had already died in prison- and were to claim that I was now ready to be merciful but that I could not simply forgive and forget but must take my five year old sinless child and have someone whip him, kick him, spit on him, humiliate him, and then kill him in the most gruesome, humiliating, and drawn-out way I know how in front of many people and only when he was in heaven could I forgive them, would this be the ultimate show of mercy?. Think about these allegation which are presented against God almighty by Paul. 8) Jesus (pbuh) contradicts Paul, the inventor of the notions of initial sin and redemption, by telling us that in order to be "Perfect" a man need only "keep the commandments (of Moses)" and "sell all that thou hast and give to the poor" (Matthew 19:16-21). Having done this Jesus (pbuh) would consider a man "PERFECT". Now the question arises: If I am "perfect" then what does my faith yet lack?. Answer: Nothing!. There is no need for the belief in the initial sin or the crucifixion. This is exactly the teachings of the apostle Barnabas (the teacher and benefactor of Paul, who Paul later looked down upon) in his Gospel as well as the teachings of the Muslim's Qur'an. 9) In every religion of mankind there are believers and sinners. Each religion also has guidelines for the transition from the domain of a sinner to the domain of the believer. For instance, in Judaism, the guideline for this transition is the commandments of Moses (pbuh). Any Jew found respecting these commandments is regarded by them a believer. Similarly, Paul alleges that the guideline for this transition is the "faith of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 2:16). What does Paul mean by this?. *He obviously does not mean the belief in the trinity since, as we have already seen (see part 11), the trinity was not invented by his church until long after his death and is nowhere to be found in the Bible. *He also does not mean by the "faith of Jesus Christ" the faith that Jesus (pbuh), according to the Bible, practiced and taught his followers to practice, which is the law of Moses (pbuh) since in this same verse he casually sweeps the law of Moses and Jesus (pbut) under the carpet with the words: "a man is not justified by the works of the law". *Does Paul then mean by the words the "faith of Jesus Christ" the belief in his miracles, his true prophethood, and his piety and sinless nature?. No!. Because this definition would make Muslims Christians too!. Does any Christian claim that Muslims are devout Christians and deserving of salvation?. No!. *What then does Paul mean?. What he means is what his Church has been preaching for close to two thousand years now: To believe that a sinless Jesus died on the cross in atonement for the initial sin Adam which we have all inherited. In other words, if you have "faith" in the "initial sin" and the "atonement" then you will be "saved". YOU NEED NOTHING ELSE!. But Jesus (pbuh) himself did not believe this. This can be clearly demonstrated by reading Matthew 9:13 where Jesus said: "But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance".
The Jews were admonishing Jesus (pbuh) for eating with sinners. Jesus' (pbuh) reply clearly divided his people into "sinners" and "righteous" people. The righteous are clearly free from the initial sin. Jesus (pbuh) was not calling them because they had already been saved. He was only calling the "sinners". But Jesus had not been crucified yet!. He also never mentioned either a crucifixion or an atonement to them. So these people are described by Jesus (pbuh) himself as righteous without their having believed in the initial sin or the atonement!. This observation is further reinforced by reading Matthew 19:16-21. Did Jesus (pbuh) intend to teach his followers one thing during his lifetime and then come back in "visions" to Paul and teach them to totally disregard everything he had taught them after his death?. Not according to him. Jesus (pbuh) said: Matthew 5:17-19: "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." Also notice Jesus' words "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice". 10) Paul himself is not even sure WHO is responsible for the "initial sin" he invented and claims we have inherited. He tells us in Romans that Adam ALONE was responsible: Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"
and also 1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive". However, in 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul tells us something completely different. He claims that Adam was NOT deceived (he was not the transgressor), rather, Eve alone was deceived and was the transgressor: "And Adam was NOT deceived, but the woman (Eve) being deceived was in the transgression". Unless we are willing to continually keep coming up with new "abstract" and "hidden" meanings for practically every single verse of the Bible, then it becomes quite clear to an unbiased mind that Paul was making these things up as he went along (see part 9 of this series). 11) 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" 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. Christians are taught that to enter heaven they only need to believe in the single fact that Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross for their sins and become baptized. (However you define "baptized") Gods commandments are considered worthless (Romans 3:28). Christians are not ignorant people. However, they have all been taught to have two different standards of logic. One for the Bible and one for everything else. They would consider any similar claim from anyone else preposterous. If they were told that the United States Government was passing out free mansions, checks for 100 Million dollars and a guaranteed "good life" to all comers if they would only believe that previous Americans died to give them their freedom, then the person making this claim would be labeled a crazy man. It is amazing how people allow others to tell them what is and isn't a genuine Gospel without asking for any proof whatsoever. The Gospel of Barnabas was discovered hidden away in the Christian's own Vatican (see previous articles). It started out in the first centuries AD as an "authentic" and "canonical" Gospel. However, over a period of a few centuries, all of the Gospels which were considered authentic by the very first Christians were slowly recognized by the enlightened church of Paul as "apocryphal" and destroyed. Similarly, the Gospels which were considered fabrications by the very first Christians were slowly adopted by these later people as authentic and canonical (see previous articles, and historical details to come, by Allah's will). The Popes themselves new of it's existence but were hiding it. To this day it has never left the hands of the Christians. It remains in the Christian Hofbibliothek in Vienna for all to see. Never has it fallen into the hands of Muslims. 1) Why then does it confirm practically every single one of the claims of the Qur'an?. 2) Why does it confirm that Jesus (pbuh) is not God nor his son, as the Qur'an does?. 3) Why does it prophesies that mankind will call Jesus (pbuh) the "Son of God" and severely caution them from doing so, as the Qur'an says?. 4) Why does it confirm that Jesus (pbuh) was not killed by the Jews but raised by God, as the Qur'an says?. 5) Why does it prophesies the coming of a new prophet after Jesus (pbuh)?. Why does it claim that the coming prophet will come from the descendants of Ishmael(the Arabs) and not Isaac(the Jews)?. 6) Why does it claim that the Jews had been changing their book from ancient times, as the Qur'an says?. 7) Why does it have the apostle Barnabas himself claiming that Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) had corrupted the religion of Jesus (pbuh) by nullifying the commandments, and by calling Jesus (pbuh) the "son of God", and that he (Paul) was leading the masses astray from the true religion of God?. Why does it confirm virtually every single claim of the Qur'an even though it was written long before the coming of Muhammad (pbuh) and has remained in the possession of the Church since?. Is it all just an amazing coincidence?. Why has the Vatican gone to such lengths to hide it over the centuries?. The Gospel of Barnabas is not the only Gospel which confirms these matters. There is also "The Shepherd of Hermas". In 1922, a third century papyrus manuscript of "The Shepherd" surfaced (Mohammed, pbuh, was born in the SEVENTH century), and once again it confirmed the teachings of the Qur'an, and once again, this Gospel was destroyed and hidden from the masses. During the first centuries AD., both of these books were considered authentic and canonical and preached as the true word of God. Christian scholars call the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the "Synoptic" (One eyed) Gospels. This is because they all seem to have had access to a common source document they were working from when they wrote their Gospels (unlike the "Gospel of John" which exhibits completely different characteristics from theses three). This source document is called 'Q'. Now they are beginning to recognize that the alleged authors are not the true authors (see previous articles). Similarly, countless verses of the Gospel of John, as well as other historical discrepancies, also go to show that John did not write the Gospel of John. Some scholars are now beginning to suspect that 'Q' may indeed be the Gospel of Barnabas. It is much larger than the others, by all measures it is an authentic Gospel, and it contains all of the stories contained in these three Gospels without the contradictions found therein. Our "domino syndrome" has now toppled a grand total of two fundamental concepts of worship in the current "Christian" faith. We continue to work our way back through all of the fabrications foisted upon Jesus (pbuh) and his message in our search for his original message. To summarize: 1) In part 11, the "Trinity" was exposed as a fabrication of mankind with no validation in the Bible whatsoever. It was shown how the majority of today's most eminent Christian scholars recognize the fact that verses were casually inserted into the Bible over the centuries to validate a given doctrine. 2) If the "trinity" is a fabrication then Jesus (pbuh) can not possibly be the son of God, since this would require him to be a SEPARATE god than God. This means that there must be at least TWO gods in existence, however, we have seen that the Bible contains verses after verse after verses which all continue to beat us over the head in no uncertain language that there is only *ONE* god in existence. Which is why the "Trinity" had to be fabricated in the first place. Stay tuned for more in upcoming articles by Allah's will. We will by His will continue to allow the "domino Syndrome" to work it's way through the rest of the blocks and we will see where it stops. We will then compare the end result with Islam and see whether there are any similarities at all between them. See you then (inshallah).
Misheal Al-Kadhi Proof that "The initial sin" and "Atonement" concepts are fabrications of mankindIn the last three posts, the "domino syndrome" was set in motion. It was demonstrated through the words of eminent Christian scholars and the Bible only, how the "Trinity" was a fabrication of mankind inserted into Christian faith many centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). It was demonstrated how the "Trinity" can not be verified through the Bible and how there is not a single verse in the whole Bible verifying this fabrication. This was the first domino. Building upon this, it was demonstrated how the concept of "the son of God" was also a fabrication of mankind and how the Bible explicitly refutes this fabrication in many places. This was the second domino. However, were there really only two "dominos" toppled in the last two articles?If you look closely, you will see that there were actually FOUR dominos toppled in the past articles. The first was the "trinity" which was exposed as a fabrication with no validation in the Bible. The second was the myth of the "son of God" which was exposed through the fact that the existence of a "son of God" would require the existence of at least TWO gods. However, verse after verse after verse of the Bible constantly beat us over the head with the fact that there is only ONE God in existence(e.g. Deuteronomy 4:39., Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:18., Isaiah 43:10-11...etc.), which is why the "trinity" had to be fabricated in the first place.There is a third domino, however. Because, in the previous article, the myth of the "Initial sin" of Adam (peace be upon him) that God almighty is claimed to hold all of mankind responsible for was also exposed as a fabrication. This was proven by simply quoting the following verses:Ezekiel 18:19-20 "Yet say ye, Why? doth not 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 "initial sin" and "redemption". It clearly states that all mankind is not held accountable by God almighty for the sin of Adam.Also Deuteronomy 24:16 "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.".And Jeremiah 31:29-30: "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".
And Ezekiel 18:1-9: "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"Other verses and proofs were presented, but to an unbiased mind, it should be obvious that Paul was indeed fabricating these lies as he was going along (Please read part 9 for a sworn admission of lying against God's glory by "St. Paul" himself and much more). Thus, the third domino has been toppled. So where is the forth?The forth domino is the "domino" of "The atonement". If the "initial sin" and our inheritance of this initial sin is a fabrication, then there is no need to "atone" for it. There is no need for a blood sacrifice of pure and sinless human beings in order to erase the "initial sin". This is simple logic. You don't need the fire department if there is no fire.So if the "Trinity", the "Son of God", the "initial sin" and the "atonement" are all fabrications, then what was the message of Jesus (pbuh)? Why was he sent? What did he preach? How did his message manage to become so seriously corrupted after his departure? Who did this and why?All of these questions shall, by God's will, be answered in part 14. However, let us start with the following:
"Worship me!"Many people claim that Jesus (pbuh) came to preach to the world the belief in the above concepts and the fact that all of mankind should worship him. It is interesting to note, however, that Jesus (pbuh) never in his lifetime told anyone "I am God" or even "worship me". Does this not seem quite amazing for someone whose whole purpose in being was to be worshipped as the sinless divine savior and "sacrificial lamb" of all of mankind?If Jesus (pbuh) was sent to earth with the sole purpose of dying on the cross to free mankind from the sin of Adam which all of mankind had forcibly inherited, then he must have known of his mission. If he did not know that this was his mission in life and he did not WILLINGLY submit to this most gruesome and humiliating fate then this implies that God almighty FORCED him AGAINST HIS WILL into this most horrible and torturous end through no fault of his own simply because he made the mistake of being sinless.Since such a claim would require God to be a blood-thirsty and torturous God, for this reason, most of the clergy tell us that Jesus (pbuh) *WILLINGLY* accepted this fate. If this is so, and this was his sole reason in being, and his sole mission, then we would expect him to spend day and night drumming this into the minds of his followers. It would be logical to assume that he would spend day and night telling everyone "The religion of Moses and his commandments are old, decaying, and ready to vanish away. Forget about them. No one shall be justified through the commandments. Not even the previous prophets such as Abraham or Moses. Only through faith in my upcoming sacrifice and my death on the cross, and my decent into hell for three days, and in my being made a curse upon you, shall you be saved. If you believe in this and you worship me then you shall be saved without the need for the commandments".This is indeed what "St. Paul" claimed:Hebrews 8:13 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.Galatians 2:16 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.Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath reason to boast; but not before God.Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree...etc..etc.So it is only logical to ask: Did Jesus (pbuh) himself ever say to anyone "I am God!", or "Worship me!"? Amazingly enough, the answer is a resounding NO!. When members of the clergy are asked to present such an explicit claim from Jesus (pbuh) himself they resort to the same response they use for all of their problems (such as the "Trinity"). They answer AROUND the problem. They do not answer the problem itself. Their answer usually follows the following general stages:He doesn't need to say it:The first stab at having to avoid admitting that Jesus (pbuh) never once made such a claim in the whole Bible is to say that it should be obvious that he deserves worship and that he is God without him having to actually say so. They do this in very flowery and thesaurus-rich words, such as: "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". (This is an actual quotation from just such a preacher)So, we must ask: If Jesus (pbuh) receives worship "without censure" without asking for it, then why must God almighty ask for worship? For example, in Isaiah 66:23 we read "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"Why does God almighty have to ASK for worship while Jesus (pbuh) does not? Why does God have to TELL us that he is God but Jesus (pbuh) does not? God almighty tells us many times that he is God, and that he demand's our worship, and that this is his right (e.g. Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6..etc.). Why does his alleged son never do the same?It is "implied":The next step for the apologists is still not to admit that there is not a single verse in the Bible where Jesus (pbuh) says "I am God!" or "Worship me!", rather, they now resort to such claims as: "Jesus forgave sins, so he MUST be god", or "Jesus said `I am', thus, he is God"...etc. However, these are legitimate concerns, so let us study them:Muslims believe that a Muslim is rewarded for every single hardship he endures during his lifetime and that each hardship endured 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 forgivement of all of his sins. If Christianity believes that Jesus (pbuh) telling a paraplegic that his sins are forgiven is a sign of divineness then what are we to say about the many millions of people in the Christian clergy who accept people's "confessions" and "forgive" 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".We have already spoken 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". Where does Jesus (pbuh) do the same?The claim made by many that since in John 8:56-59 Jesus (pbuh) says "before Abraham was born, I am" means that he is God is not a valid argument. Why? Because, 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 present not only before Abraham (pbuh), but also before all of creation?.However, if the emphasis is to be placed on the words "I am", and it is to be compared to the verse of Exodus 3:14, please note that 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 is translated as "It is I" in Matthew 14:27 and as simply "I" in Matthew 26:22 ...etc. Notice how people are driven in a chosen direction of faith through selective translation?. Also remember that Jesus (pbuh) did not speak GREEK. Notice how people are deceived through deliberate dishonesty in the translation of the ancient manuscripts?Why does Jesus (pbuh) never say "I am God!" or "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 commands his followers to worship him, where God commands mankind to worship his son, where God threatens those who do not worship His son, 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 ask for people to worship Him while Jesus (pbuh) is not required to do the same?More deliberate distortion in the translation:The final attempt at trying to prove that Jesus (pbuh) commanded people to worship him is to say: "People came to Jesus and worshipped him and he did not object, thus, he endorsed it". They quote such verses as John 9:38 "Lord. I believe, and he worshipped him." and Matthew 28:17 "they saw him, they worshipped him".Once again, a valid concern. However, let us go back to the original manuscripts themselves and see what the original word was that is translated into English as "worshipped". Please note that the word translated as "worshipped" in both verses is the GREEK word proskuneo {pros-ku-neh'-o} which literally means (and I quote): "to kiss, like a dog licking his masters hand". Go back and check the Strong's concordance for this word. Is the act of kissing someone's hand the same as worshipping him?. Once again, selective translation. We now begin to see a trend of warping the meanings of the verses through false translation in order to promote a given doctrine. The translator does not deem it worthy of Jesus (pbuh) that the person in front of him "kissed his hand", so he is made to "worship" him. Technically, it is possible for the word "worship" to convey simple respect and not prayer, so the translator cleverly manages to get away with such a ploy, and most people are deceived into understanding the word "worshipped" to mean "prayed". Is this how the word of God should be "translated"?Jesus true claims: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 ?.Want 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". "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.In the Bible we find many verses to this effect: Exodus 34:14
"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God". Psalms 81:9 "There shall no strange god be in thee; neither shalt thou worship any strange god".
Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD"."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 7:22Now that the fabrications of mankind have been dispelled and the "trinity", "son of God", "initial sin", and "atonement" have all been exposed as the lies that they are, we will now move on by God's will to reveal the true historical facts surrounding the fabrication of these lies. We will by God's will do this, as we have been doing so far, by quoting the Bible and eminent Christian scholars only. Keep your eyes peeled for part 14 for an analysis of these historical facts. See you then (inshallah).Misheal Al-KadhiChristian scholars tell us how and when the Bible was corruptedIn the last three articles, a detailed analysis of the myths of the "Trinity", "son of God", "initial sin", and "atonement" was studied. It was proven through the words of eminent Christian scholars and the Bible only how these concepts were all fabrications of mankind foisted upon the Message of Jesus (pbuh) by Paul and his followers after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). In this article, we shall start to display some of the true historical facts surrounding the fabrication of these myths, who concocted them, and why. In what follows, as you will now have become accustomed, only the Bible and eminent Christian scholars shall be quoted in order to reconstruct these historical facts.Historical origin of the "trinity" mythSomeone 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 Nicaea of 325 CE.In "The New Catholic Encyclopedia" (Encyclopedia (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating official approval), 1967, p.295, 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 assimilated into Christian life and thought"
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". In "Eerdman's handbook to the history of Christianity", chapter on "Councils and creeds", 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".
We are told in this book that before the third century CE the "three" were separate in Christian belief and each had his or it's own status.Terullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third-century Church in Carthage, was the first to use 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.About this time, two separate events were about to lead up to the official recognition of the church by the pagan Roman empire. On the one hand, Emperor Constantine, the pagan emperor of the Romans, had a son named Crispus. Crispus was a handsome, charismatic, and brave young man who was the popular hero of the Roman people. His popularity grew to such an extent that he began to pose a serious threat to the rule of his own father, Constantine. Therefore, Constantine had him killed. The people were outraged, so in order to cover his tracks, Constantine placed the blame for the death of Crispus on his son's step mother and had her killed too. The people were now thrown into a great fury. Constantine had just made a bad situation much worse. He decided to seek forgiveness in the temple, but was told that no forgiveness could be granted for such an action. Finally he resorted to the church. They told him that forgiveness could be his through repentance. Thus, Constantine found salvation in the church. He now began to look to the church for support in shoring up his rule of the Roman empire.On the Christian front, controversy over the matter of the Trinity had just blown up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria, Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop. Now Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray. In 325 CE, the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine was 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 Nicaea" 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". 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 Nicaea.The matter was far from settled, however, 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 did not convert 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 a difference of belief.Worship of the Roman sun-god was very popular during this period. Emperor Constantine (who presided over the council of Nicaea) was popularly considered to be the manifestation of the Roman sun-god. For this reason, in order to please Constantine, the Trinitarian church:
-Defined Christmas to be on the 25th of December, the birthday of the Roman Sun-god-Moved the Christian Sabbath from Saturday to the Roman Sun-day (Dies Soli), the holy day of the sun-god Apollo (see future articles, by God's will)-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 future articles, by God's will)-Incorporated most of the rituals performed on the Sun-God's birthday into their own celebrations.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.Arius was quickly condemned and then excommunicated. In 335 CE 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's murder.Constantine had made it an imperial law to accept the Creed of Nicaea. 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". Constantine embraced Christianity and was "baptized" on his death bed in 337 CE when water was poured on his forehead and died shortly thereafter. Ironically, Constantine died a believer in the divine unity and teachings of the Arians and not the new Trinitarian beliefs of the Pauline sect.This "triune God" theory was not a novel concept but one that was in vogue during the early Christian era. There was:1) The Egyptian triad of Ramses II, Amon-Ra, and Nut.2) The Egyptian triad of Horus, Osiris, and Isis.3) The Palmyra triad of moon god, Lord of the Heavens, and sun god.4) The Babylonian triad of Ishtar, Sin, and Shamash.5) The Mahayana Buddhist triune of transformation body, enjoyment body, and truth body.6) The Hindu triad (Trimurti) of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva....and so forth. (see future articles for more details, by God's will)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.
Edward Gibbon, considered one of the greatest English 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"
Gibbon, "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire", II, 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. 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 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 matter will be dealt with in more detail in chapter three (for more also see "Islam and Christianity in the modern world", by Dr. Muhammad Ansari, and "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). By God's will, many more details of these pagan sect's acts of worship and how they were later "borrowed" by the Trinitarians will be presented in future articles.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 was almost a carbon copy of 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: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?". Romans 3:7.Even though the "Trinity" was formulated in the council of Nicaea, still, the concept of "Jesus was God", or the "incarnation" 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 cosubstantial 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". Gibbon, "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire", VI, 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 Nicaea (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 Christianity 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 to ignorant to recognize this "truth".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:"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".
(emphasis added) Gibbon, "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire", VI, 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.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". Many folk customs associated with Easter (for example, Easter eggs) 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), very coincidentally, regains his power and comes to life on the exact same day (see future articles for details, by Allah's will).After the council of Nicea, 325AD., the following proud proclamation was made by the church:
"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".
Gibbon, "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire", II, p. 119.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) 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.Jesus (pbuh) himself did indeed foretell of this most tragic situation in the verse of John 16:2-4
"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.".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", 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?.
John Lothrop Motly's "Rise of the Dutch Republic" indicates:
"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".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).Only today when true religious freedom, scientific knowledge, and geological 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 pole of 31 of the 39 Anglican Bishops of England found 19 to believe that it is not necessary for Christians to believe that Jesus (pbuh) is God, but only "His supreme agent" (his messenger) as taught by Muslims for 1400 years now and testified to by Jesus (pbuh) himself in John 17:3
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent".The systematic destruction of the law of Jesus
Jesus (pbuh) was a very devout Jew. No Jew could ever raise a finger to him and say why do you not observe the Sabbath?. Why do you eat pork?. 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) You will not find a single Christian on the face of the earth today who refrains from eating pork or observes the Sabbath as his "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 (through their dreams) 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. Jesus (pbuh) considered pigs such filthy and disgusting animals that not only did he never taste their flesh (coincidentally, 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, Peter is alleged to have had a dream and then made lawful all of the creatures of the earth (Acts 11:5-10). In one tragic moment, Jesus' lifetime of restraint was casually swept under the carpet.Jesus (pbuh) never in his lifetime changed a single commandment from the law of Moses (pbuh). He departed leaving his followers with the following words: Matthew 5:17-19
"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".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 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 so forth 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, and for all intents and purposes were indistinguishable for 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". 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 "translations" 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.
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 enter heaven, according to Paul, is to believe in the initial 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 (see previous articles) since these conflictions 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 complicated law that was totally useless and could never relieve them of this hereditary stain. Only those after Jesus (pbuh) will receive true salvation (Romans 3:28...etc.).
We have already seen in parts 9 and 10 the details of how "St. Paul" utterly corrupted the religion of Jesus (pbuh) after his departure. We have already seen in part 9 how Paul swears in the name of God almighty that the story of his conversion was a fabrication. Let us see what else we can learn about him:There are 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 Genesis 17:10-14:
"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".
So 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. John 7:22
"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?".
Jesus himself was circumcised on the eighth day just like all faithful Jews: Luke 2:21:
"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS". 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). Galatians 2:7: "I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised".
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: Galatians 2:14
"I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel".
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's 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.As mentioned in a previous article, Paul himself was not even sure about his own "visions". In
2 Corinthians 12:1-5 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.".
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, had been commanded by this person to "lie unto God's glory", and had been told to nullify the commandments which Jesus (pbuh) had upheld his whole life, who would you say this described?. Who had I seen?.The Qur'an says:
"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 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 faultlessness (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 a "vision" which was 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 Barnabas, who's words obviously carried a great deal of weight with 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 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. 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 this "vision", otherwise we might have been lead astray by the lazy, misguided, hypocritical apostles. For Barnabas's version of these matters, read "The Gospel of Barnabas".Let us time out for a quick analyses of the above verses:
1) 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.. etc.).2) Paul receives "visions" and is saved (Acts 22:9, Acts 9:7...etc.)3) Paul is not sure exactly what he saw in his visions.(2 Corinthians 12:1-5)4) Paul's visions contained "unspeakable words that it is unlawful to utter". (2 Corinthians 12:1-5)5) Paul tells us that the person in his visions was Jesus (pbuh). He declares that he received his teachings of "Christianity" from these visions and from no one else, not even the apostles.
(Galatians 1:12).6) Paul "lies" unto "God's Glory" in order that God's "truth" may "abound"(Romans 3:7).7) The apostles differ with Paul regarding the "truth" of the circumcision ordained by God and other matters.(1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 2:7...etc.).8) The apostles, according to Paul, did not walk "uprightly" according to the "truth of the Gospel" and were lazy, misguided, hypocrites (1 Corinthians 15:10, Galatians 2:14, Galatians 2:13).9) Most of the books of the New Testament are written by Paul himself. In them, Paul himself gives an unblushing pronouncement of how he was a vastly superior apostle of Jesus (pbuh) than the apostles who accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his ministry and they all needed his guidance to see the "truth" of Jesus' message and how Jesus (pbuh) and the apostles appointed him the twelfth apostle..Summary: If the truth of God needs lies unto God's Glory to establish it, and Paul himself admits to having lied unto God's Glory, and the apostles were not following this "truth" as close as Paul would have liked, then the apostles must not have been lying against God's glory enough for Paul's taste.Regardless, it is well known that just prior to Paul's "miraculous" conversion and "heavenly vision" he had been extremely infatuated with a woman called Popea and had wished to marry her. Popea was the attractive but ambitious daughter of the high priest of the Jews. She possessed haughty beauty, and an intriguing mind. She liked Paul but rejected his offers of marriage. She went to Rome as an actress. She started on the stage and ended up in Emperor Nero's bed. She eventually married him and became the Empress of the Roman Empire. Paul, therefore, had good reason to hate both the Jews and the Romans. His "vision" coincided with Popea's rejection.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) to convey this message. 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 concoct the doctrine of the trinity about three hundred years 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 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's 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. Romans 3:28: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law". 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, Galatians 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law". He then went about teaching the "true" meanings of the teachings of Jesus and Paul's teachings 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:
1 Corinthians 9:20 "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"
and 1 Corinthians 9:22: "...I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some" and 1 Corinthians 6:12: "...all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any". What are some of these "means" Paul used to "save some", well, as we have seen, one of them is his admitted habit of LYING AGAINST GOD'S GLORY in order to propagate his doctrine. However, he believed that the truth "abounded" through his lies (Romans 3:7). 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". Did Jesus (pbuh) come to Paul in a "vision" and command him to lie against God?. Is God's light so week that it can only be advanced through Paul's lies?. Are Paul's lies so "pious" as to advance God's glory in a manner that would be impossible through truth and light alone?. Is this what Jesus (pbuh) was teaching him in his "visions"?. Is this the religion of God?. Please go back and read part 9 for more details.Christian scholars today unanimously agree that the very first Christians, including the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) were all Unitarians and that the trinity was not concocted until around the beginning of the fourth 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 complicated law of Moses (pbuh), or the much simpler "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".
If Paul wanted to convert these people, he would need to make Christianity a little more appealing to them, which he (and his church) did.One of these first Unitarian Christians, Iranaeus (130-200 AD), a follower of the Gospels of Barnabas and the apostles, and one of the first Christians to be killed because of their adherence to the unity of God, has the following to say about such as Paul and his church: "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 nothing 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 angles 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"?.Remember the words of the scholars of Christianity regarding "St. 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" .
From "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". From "The Jesus Report", Johannes Lehman, p. 128.Another Christian, 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 Christian scholars besides himself, he recognizes Paul as the 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".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 abstaining 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.I would like nothing more than to present much more supporting evidence of these matters, however, we must end somewhere. For a detailed historical account collected from the writings of the church itself, I strongly recommend the book "Jesus, A Prophet of Islam" by Muhammad `Ata ur-Rahim, and "Blood on the cross", by Ahmed Thomson.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 previous articles). These matters have been well known and documented by 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 now way to retrieve the original teachings of Jesus (pbuh) after such extensive and continuous revision of the text of the Bible over so many centuries as well as the Paulian 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 Bible. It contains the original, uncorrupted teachings of God. We 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.As this series of articles winds to a close, we find one last piece of business unattended to. By Allah's will, it shall be dealt with in the following article. This last article shall (inshallah) exhibit the historical details of where the concepts of "Trinity" and so forth came from, and how the Trinitarians "borrowed" extensively from the same ancient paganism Jesus (pbuh) fought so valiantly to destroy in order to define their religion of "Christianity". See you then inshallah.Misheal Al-KadhiHow the "trinitarians" borrowed from ancient paganism In the last few articles, it was proven through the words of Christian scholars and the Bible itself how the "trinty", "son of God", "initial sin", and "atonement" were all fabrications of mankind. Extensive proof that all of this was presented not from the quotations of Muslims, but from the admisions of eminent Christian scholars and the Bible itself. After that, the true historical facts of how, when, and by whom the Bible was corrupted were also presented. It was shown how "St. Paul" was the one primarily responsible for introducing this corruption into the religion of Jesus (pbuh) and how his followers later took it upon themselves to "elaborate" and "extend" his corruption over many centuries. It was demonstrated, once again through the writings of Christians, how their beliefs were forced upon the masses through death, torture, and mutilation. However, the question remains: Did the followers of Paul simply concoct their religion out of thin air or did they have some sources of "inspiration" which they were "borrowing" from? In this article we shall do our best to answer this question. In this article, we shall (inshallah) demonstrate that most of the practices of today's "Christianity" as well as most of it's beliefs were "borrowed" from the same paganism Jesus (pbuh) fought so valiantly during his lifetime to destroy. As the reader will by now have become accustomed, this will be proven through the writings of Christians themselves. We shall demonstrate how all of these practices and beliefs were well established among many other pagan cults centuries before the arrival of Paul and his "visions". The expanse of land between the river Nile and the river Euphrates was home to the Jews for centuries before the coming of Jesus (pbuh). During this period, this land fell under the rule of many empires, including the Babylonians, the Persians, and the Romans, all of whom themselves had extensive contact with many other cultures and beliefs. We shall see in what follows that the religion of Jesus (pbuh) was warped after his departure through the influence of all of these cultures and beliefs and how it now bears characteristics of many of these religions, including Buddhism, Roman and Greek worship, Hinduism, Persian and Egyptian beliefs, in addition to Judaism and many others. The following information has been obtained from 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. The general impression among Christians today is that the difference between today's "Christianity" and Paganism is so great that any similarity between them is scarcely recognizable. This, however, is far from the truth. The more knowledgeable a Christian becomes with today's "Christianity", the more they realize that it is the end result of a continuous effort to foist upon Jesus (pbuh) and his apostles the pre-existent beliefs of ancient paganism. The established beliefs of these pagans were "inserted" into the word of God and it's religious practices through the agency of many centuries of divine "inspiration" to the Church. The most knowledgeable among Christian scholars are the most well-acquainted with this fact. The great luminary of the Church, Saint Augustine himself (354-430 AD.), is quoted to have said "The same thing which is now called CHRISTIAN RELIGION existed among the ancients. They have begun to call Christian the true religion which existed before". "Our love for what is old, our reverence for what our fathers used, makes us keep still in the church, and on the very altar cloths, symbols which would excite the smile of an Oriental, and lead him to wonder why we send missionaries to his land, while cherishing his faith in ours" James Bonwick Where to start?. There is so much to say. The examples are so numerous. Why not start with the very symbol of Christianity itself, the "cross". The Cross:
Current historical knowledge recognizes the fact that the cross was well recognized as a religious symbol long before the advent of Jesus (pbuh). It was adored in India as the symbol of the Hindu god Agni, the "light of the world". It was placed in the hands of Siva, Brahma, Vishnu, Krishna, Tvashtri, and Jama. The cross was also well known among the Buddhists from ancient times and the followers of Lama of Thibet. The ancient Egyptians also adopted the cross as a religious symbol of their pagan gods. Countless Egyptians drawings depict themselves holding crosses in their hands. Among them, the Egyptian savior Horus is depicted holding a cross in his hand. He is also depicted as an infant sitting on his mother's knee with a cross on the seat they occupy. The most common of the crosses used by these pagan Egyptians, the CRUX ANSATA, was later adopted by the Christians The Egyptian savior, Osiris, the Egyptian god of the dead and the underworld, is sometimes represented holding out this cross to mortals signifying that this person has discarded mortality for the life to come.Another cross has been unearthed in Ireland. It belongs to the cult of the Persian god of the sun "Mithra" and bears a crucified effigy. The Greeks and Romans too adopted the cross as their religious symbol many centuries before Christianity did the same. An ancient inscription in Tessaly is accompanied by a Calvary cross. More crosses can be found to adorn the tomb of king Midas in Phrygia. The examples are far too numerous to list here, however, anyone wishing to learn more is encouraged to read the books mentioned above. The "Trinity":
Now let us study the "Trinity" and it's roots in ancient pagan worship. The "Trinity" of Christendom, as defined in the creed of Nicea, is a merging of three distinct entities into one single entity, while remaining three distinct entities. We are told to speak of the three gods as one god. The are considered to be co-eternal, co-substantial, and co-equal. However, only the first was self existent. The others preceded from the first. This sort of self-contradictory philosophical warping of the message of Jesus (pbuh) has it's roots not in the inspiration of God, but in ancient paganism. Most ancient religions were built upon some sort of threefold distinction. Deities were always trinities of some kind or consisted of successive emanation in threes. In India we find the doctrine of the divine trinity called "Tri-murti" (Three-forms) consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. It is an inseparable unity though three in form. Worshipers are told to worship them as one deity. Such concepts posed no problem to the logic of an ancient Indian worshipper since they were already used to worshipping gods with the body of a man and the head of an elephant, or gods with six arms, and so forth. The Brahmas also have their trinity. In their trinity, Vajrapani, Manjusri, and Avalokitesvara form a divine union of three gods into one god called "Buddha". The citizens of China and Japan also worship Buddha, but they know him as "Fo". When they worship him they say "Fo, is one god but has three forms". Sir William Jones says: "Very respectable natives have assured me, that one or two missionaries have been absurd enough to in their zeal for the conversion of the Gentiles, to urge that the Hindoos were even now almost Christians; because their Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa (Siva), were no other than the Christian Trinity". Bible myths and their parallels in other religions, p. 370. An ancient Indian sculpture embodying a three-headed "god" is depicted in Mr. Doane's book (page 371), it was taken from "a very ancient granite" in the museum at the "Indian house" and was dug from the ruins of a temple in the island of Bombay. The ancient Egyptians also worshipped a trinity. Their symbol of a wing, a globe, and a serpent is supposed to have stood for the different attributes of their god. The Greeks also had their trinities. When making their sacrifices to their gods, they would sprinkle holy water on the alter THREE times, they would then sprinkle the people THREE times also. Frankincense was then taken with THREE fingers and strewed upon the alter THREE times. All of this was done because the oracle had proclaimed that all sacred things ought to be in THREES. Remember that the philosophy of these people (The Greeks) is what was primarily responsible for defining the Christian "Trinitarian" nature of God. This was done through the writings of the great Greek philosopher Plato regarding his "Logos" ("word"). Further, remember that the Gospels of the Bible were named the "Greek Gospels" for a reason; because they were written in their language and based upon their philosophy (see previous articles). 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. Trinities were not confined to these groups alone, but the Persians, the Assyrians, the Phenicians, the Scandanavians, the Druids, the inhabitants of Siberia, the ancient Mexicans, the Peruvians, and many others, all worshipped "Trinitarian" pagan deities long before the council of Nicea of 325 AD. officially recognized this to be God's "true" nature. Christmas: Let us now move on to the "birthday of Jesus", Christmas. Jesus (pbuh) is commonly considered to have been born on the 25th of December. However, it is common knowledge among Christian scholars that he was not born on this day. It is well known that the first Christian churches held their festival in May, April, or January. Scholars of the first two centuries AD. even differ in which year he was born. Some believing that he was born fully twenty years before the current accepted date. So how was the 25th of December selected as the birthday of Jesus (pbuh)?. Grolier's encyclopedia says: "Christmas is the feast of the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated on December 25.... Despite the beliefs about Christ that the birth stories expressed, the church did not observe a festival for the celebration of the event until the 4th century.... since 274, under the emperor Aurelian, Rome had celebrated the feast of the "Invincible Sun" on December 25. In the Eastern Church, January 6, a day also associated with the winter solstice, was initially preferred. In course of time, however, the West added the Eastern date as the feast of the Epiphany, and the East added the Western date of Christmas" So who else celebrated the 25th of December as the birth day of their gods before it was agreed upon as the birth day of Jesus (pbuh)?. Well, there are the people of India who rejoice, decorate their houses with garlands, and give presents to their friends on this day. The people of China also celebrate this day and close their shops. The pagan god Buddha is believed to have been born on this day when the "Holy Ghost" descended on his virgin mother Maya. The great savior and god of the Persians, Mithras, is also believed to have been born on the 25th of December long before the coming of Jesus (pbuh). The Egyptians celebrated this day as the birth day of their great savior Horus, the Egyptian god of light and the son of the "virgin mother" and "queen of the heavens" Isis. Osiris, god of the dead and the underworld in Egypt, the son of "the holy virgin", again was believed to have been born on the 25th of December. The Greeks celebrated the 25th of December as the birthday of Hercules, the son of the supreme god of the Greeks, Zeus, through the mortal woman Alcmene. Bacchus, the god of wine and revelry among the Romans (known among the Greeks as Dionysus) was also born on this day. Adonis, revered as a "dying-and-rising god" among the Greeks, miraculously was also born on the 25th of December. His worshipers held him a yearly festival representing his death and resurrection, in midsummer. The ceremonies of his birth day are recorded to have taken place in the same cave in Bethlehem which is claimed to have been the birth place of Jesus (pbuh). The Scandinavians celebrated the 25th of December as the birth day of their god Freyr, the son of their supreme god of the heavens, Odin. The Romans observed this day as the birth day of the god of the sun, Natalis Solis Invicti ("Birthday of Sol the invincible"). There was great rejoicing and all shops were closed. There was illumination and public games. Presents were exchanged, and the slaves were indulged in great liberties. Remember, these are the same Romans who would later preside over the council of Nicea (325 AD.) which lead to the official Christian recognition of the "Trinity" as the "true" nature of God, and the "fact" that Jesus (pbuh) was born on the 25th of December too. In Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon says: "The Roman Christians, ignorant of his (Christ's) birth, fixed the solemn festival to the 25th of December, the Brumalia, or Winter Solstice, when the Pagans annually celebrated the birth of Sol" vol. ii, p. 383. Christmas is not the only Christian festival which was borrowed from ancient paganism and foisted upon the religion of Jesus (pbuh). There is also Easter (see previous articles), the Feast of St. John, the Holy communion, the Annunciation of the virgin, the assumption of the virgin, and many others have their roots in ancient pagan worship. Since we can not get into the details here, therefor, the interested reader is encouraged to read about them in the books mentioned above. General similarities with paganism:
As we have seen, the common thread among most of these pagan sects is their worship of the sun as their deity and their selection of the Winter Solstice (25th of December) as the time of the birth of their supreme god. The winter Solstice is the time of year when the sun would reach it's last stage of decline and once again begin to rise and become "re-born". This rise would continue until day and night become equal in length. At this point, the god of the sun would appear to be at a stand off with the "prince of darkness". This would occur at the Vernal equinox, or Easter. This situation, however, would not last for long, as the god of the sun would triumph after Easter, and days would become longer than nights. We notice that the church too received divine "inspiration" that Jesus (pbuh) was born on the 25th of December, and also that he too "triumphed over the prince of darkness" on Easter day, just as the pagan gods of the Greeks and Romans had done centuries before (Remember, the Pagan Romans were the rulers of the Christians and took it upon themselves to "preserve" Christianity). Let us have a brief look at the popular beliefs of the pagan Gentiles who would later take it upon themselves to spread his religion to the world: Attis: The pagan god Attis was the son of the virgin Nana. He was the "savior" and "only begotten son". His blood was believed to have renewed the fertility of the earth. As such, he was a symbol of immortality. He was believed to have died on March 24th and been resurrected shortly thereafter. Sacramental meals and baptism of blood were features of his church. Adonis or Tammuz: He was born of a virgin and was the "savior" of Syria. He died in redemption for mankind and was later resurrected in the spring. Dionysus or Bacchus: He was the "only begotten son" of Jupiter, the king of the gods of the Romans and the lord of life and death (For the Greeks, his father was the almighty Zeus). He was named the god of wine and revelry. Dionysus died at the hands of the Titans, who tore him apart, roasted the pieces, and began to eat them. At that point Zeus intervened, saved some of the pieces, and had Apollo bury them at Delphi. There, it was believed, Dionysus arose from the dead.
He said to mankind "It is I who guide you; it is I who protect you, and who save you; I am Alpha and Omega". He was slain for redeeming humanity and was called "the slain one", "the sin bearer", and "the redeemer". In celebrating his festival, his worshippers would observe the "sparagmos": the tearing apart of a live animal, the eating of its flesh, and the drinking of its blood; participants believed they were in fact partaking of the god's body and blood. Plays were also staged at these festivals. Wine had a central place at his festivals. Does any of this sound familiar?. Bel or Baal: He was the sun god of Babylon. The story of his life and his passion play is almost an exact carbon copy of that of Jesus (pbuh). Called the lord of the universe, he was killed by monsters but restored to life. His death and resurrection were celebrated annually as a part of Canaanite fertility rituals. Osiris: He was the Egyptian's god of the dead and the underworld, born of the "virgin of the world" on the 29th of December. He preached gentleness and peace. Wine and corn were both his discoveries. He was betrayed by Typhen, slain and dismembered. He remained in hell for two or three days and three nights. He would be the judge of mankind in a future life. Mithras or Mithra He was the sun god of the Persians and the son of a virgin. He was born on the 25th of December. Christmas and Easter were two of the most important festivals of his church. His worshipers observed baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist supper at which time they would partake of their "God" in the form of bread and wine. Krishna: The Indian god Krishna too bears a tremendous resemblance to Jesus (pbuh) in the story of his mission and his divinity. He was the incarnation of the Indian's supreme god Vishnu (the preserver and protector of the world) in the womb of Devaki. Upon his birth, a great chorus of angles proclaimed "In the delivery of this favored woman, nature shall have cause to exalt". His birth was indicated by a star in heaven. Although of royal blood, he was born in a cave. He was presented with gifts of sandalwood and perfumes. His foster father was told to flee and hide him lest king Kansa might take his life. King Kansa had ordered all male infants born on that night to be slain. One of his first miracles was the healing of a leper. He was later slain and this resulted in an eclipse of the sun and a black circle forming around the moon. Spirits were seen on all sides and he descended into hell, rose again, and ascended into heaven with many people being witnesses to his bodily accent. He will have a "second coming" in the future which his followers continue await. There are countless other similarities with what is known today as "Christianity" even though his religion was well establish centuries before the birth of Jesus (pbuh). The accounts of Krishna's childhood agree quite closely with the apocryphal accounts of Jesus' childhood. In the ancient epic poems, Krishna is simply regarded as a great hero, it was not until about the 4th century BC that he was elevated to the position of a god. Is all of this a mere coincidence?. Buddha: Both books mentioned above have compiled a very detailed comparison of the legends of both Jesus (pbuh) and Buddha. The similarities are astounding. T.W. Doane has gone so far as to dedicate an entire chapter to this comparison, including a 48 point side-by-side narration from the time of their birth till the end of their lives on earth. Their conception, birth, mission, miracles, temptation, preaching, worship, prophesies, death, ascension, divineness, judgment of mankind, and many other matters are almost word-for-word exact carbon copies of one another. Dr. Ansari records in his book the following words of the eminent Christian scholar S. M. Melamed:
"Yet the fact remains that Buddhist canons were already known to the Western world before the coming of Jesus. Today hardly any Indologist of note denies the organic connection between the two redemptive religions. So close is the connection between them that even the details of the miracles recorded between Buddhism and Christianity are the same. Of Buddha, too, it was told that he fed five hundred men with one loaf of bread, that he cured lepers and caused the blind to see".
As far back as 1884, a German historian of religion by the name of Rudolph Seydel published a very detailed study demonstrating that all of the tales, miracles, similes, and proverbs of the Christian Bible have their counterparts in the much more ancient Buddhastic gospel. The author of "Bible Myths" observes that even though Buddha has been elevated today to the position of God, still, Mr. Doane observes that
"There is no reason to believe that he ever arrogated to himself any higher authority than that of a teacher of religion, but as in modern factions, there were readily found among his followers those who carried his peculiar tenets much further than their founder. These, not content with lauding during his life-time the noble deeds of their teacher, exalted him, within a quarter of a century after his death to a place among their deities - worshipping as a god one they had known only as a simple hearted, earnest, truth-seeking philanthropist".
Once again, this conforms exactly to the claim of the Qur'an that God was selecting prophets from every nation on earth (not just the Jews) and sending them to their people (and only to their people) to return them to the true worship of God alone, and that after their departure, their followers would not be content with themselves until they had managed after the death of their prophet to totally corrupt what he had come to preach to them and even to go so far as to make this prophet himself the object of their pagan worship (the Qur'an, Fatir (35):24). We will notice that when ancient poems and writings of such people prove that Buddha started out simply as a "religious teacher" and never claimed for himself divine attributes, then we will readily conclude that his followers have corrupted his original teachings. However, when the same is discovered in the early Christian writings of the first three centuries AD. regarding Jesus (pbuh) (see previous articles), now these writings are labeled "apocryphal" lies. They "blaspheme the Lord Jesus". "How could anyone ever dare say such a thing about our god Jesus?" they will ask. And this is the exact same response you can expect to get from a worshipper of Buddha. If you show him the writings of the first centuries AD. regarding Jesus, he will be forced to conclude that Jesus (pbuh) was a "religious teacher" and never attempted to promote himself to any higher level of divine authority. However, he will never accept such claims against his "god" Buddha. Notice how personal prejudice prevents one from accepting what their own logic dictates?. We have already seen in chapter one how Christian scholars today readily recognize the fact that for the first three hundred years AD., "Christianity" remained a sect within Judaism and that the first fifteen Bishops of Christianity were circumcised Jews who worshipped in the synagogues of the Jews. We have seen how it was only after the introduction of Christianity to the Romans and the official "Guardianship" of the Roman empire of the religion of Jesus (pbuh) that it began to see many of the "truths" of the mission of Jesus (pbuh) which were hidden from the very first apostles of Jesus (pbuh). We have seen how the "trinity", the birth of Jesus (pbuh) on the 25th of December, the Easter festival and many other founding doctrines of Christianity were not "recognized" to be the "truth" until after the religion of Jesus (pbuh) was "adopted" by those people who for many centuries before that had been spoon fed doctrines of "trinity", "savior from sin", "incarnation of the almighty", "death and resurrection", Christmas and Easter, "three days and three nights in hell", "only begotten of the almighty", "killed by the enemy", and many other matters which were later "inspired" to them by God in order to be "clarified" in the Bible so that they could be seen clearly. Sadly enough, once all of this detailed and irrefutable evidence has been presented, by the Christian's own scholars, in support of the fact that all of these matters were acts of pagan worship and belief centuries before the coming of Jesus (pbuh), even with all of this, the adamant orthodox will ever manage to find a way out. "It is quite simple really", they will explain, "All of these countless pagan cults from all over the earth must have had prior knowledge of the coming of Jesus and inserted the story of his life into pagan mythology centuries before his actual arrival".
Muslims can not force a person to use their mind. They can only present the evidence. It is up to that person themselves whether they will choose to accept the facts or not. The great and elect messenger of Allah, Jesus (peace be upon him), is innocent of these pagan innovations which have been foisted upon him after his departure by those who do not fear God. He was a true messenger of God and would never dare to say otherwise. God is one god. He is indivisible and inseparable. There is no God but He. He has no sons nor any equal. He does not hold mankind responsible for the sin of others, but only for their own worship. And He alone shall be the final judge of all of mankind on the day of judgment. There are many other parallels that could be brought up in this comparison. However, we can not get into the details here, and therefore, we leave it up to the interested reader to read about them in the books mentioned above. I hope that yu find the information presented in this series of articles both informative and useful. I ask Allah almighty that he guide us all to His good will and his paradise. Thank you all for your interest. I close this series of articles with the following quotations.Sincerely Misheal ibn Abdullah Al-Kadhi
The Qur'an says: "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 Qur'an, Lukman(31):21. The Bible says: "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 The Bible also tells us that Jesus says: "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men". Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7
The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the Qur'an: In the 15-part series of articles titled "Mankind's corruption of the Bible --proof", we had alluded to the Dead Sea Scrolls in the quotation by Mr. F. F. Bruce. Even with his staunch defense of the infallibility of the New and Old Testament and the impossibility of mankind having ever having made the slightest change to their text, even with that, we find him saying "It is worth mentioning here that striking affinities of thought and language have been recognized between the Gospel and the Qumran texts. These affinities must not be exaggerated; the Qumran literature comes no where near presenting us with such a figure as the Jesus of this Gospel (John)" What is so noteworthy of this quote? Well, to answer this question we need to begin with the story of the scrolls themselves: In 1947 a group of children stumbled upon the first set of scrolls in a cave on the shores of the dead sea. These scrolls were imediately identified as the work of a very devout sect of the Jewish community that lived centuries before the birth of Jesus (pbuh). Hershel Shanks says in his book Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: "Such was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, manuscripts a thousand years older than the oldest known Hebrew texts of the Bible, manuscripts many of which were written a hundred years before the birth of Jesus and at least one of which may have been written almost three hundred years before the journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethleham" (Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hershel Shanks, pp. 7-8). An immediate frantic search ensued through the remaining caves in the region in order to find what other ancient scrolls could be discovered therein. A small group of "international" scholars in Israel were given exclusive access to them and the rest of the world was all but totally barred from gaining even the slightest glimpse of the texts (Prof. Eisenman observes that one of the major stumbling blocks for the publication of the scrolls was that "in the first place, the team was hardly international") . Prof. Robert Eisenman was one of the key players in the drama that finally lead to the release of the scrolls. In his book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" we read:
"In the spring of 1986, at the end of his stay in Jerusalem, Professor Eisenman went with the British scholar, Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield, to see one of the Israeli officials responsible for this - an intermediary on behalf of the Antiquities Department (now 'Authority') and the International Team and the Scrolls Curator at Israel Museum. They were told in no uncertain terms 'You will not see the Scrolls in your lifetimes'". This stung them into action, and as a result of this statement, a massive effort was launched and five years later, through a whirlwind of media publicity, absolute access to the scrolls was attained. Prof. Eisenman eventually received 1800 pictures of the previously unpublished scrolls. The book goes on to describe how "Eisenman was preparing the Facsimile Edition of all unpublished plates. This was scheduled to appear the following spring through E. J. Brill in Leiden, Holland. Ten days, however, before it's scheduled publication in April 1991, after pressure was applied by the International Team, the publisher inexplicably withdrew and Hershel Shanks (author of Biblical Archiology Review) and the Biblical Archeology Society to their credit stepped in to fill the breach". However, finally in September 1991, the archives were officially opened and two months later the
2-volume Facsimile Edition was published. We have already read the words of Mr. Tom Harpur 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.
So why don't we study these scrolls in a little more detail and see what else we can learn ? The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of fragments from many manuscripts, however, some of the most interesting among them are the Pesher texts. The Pesher texts are strings of interpretations of Biblical verses compiled by the most knowledgeable among the Jews. The word itself is derived from the Hebrew root word p-sh-r, which means, "to explain". The texts consist of Biblical passages followed by the words pesher ha-davar "the interpretation of the matter is", and then the interpretation itself. The basis of all of these texts is the notion that all of history is preordained by God. In other words, God is not restricted to looking at matters as "past", "present", or "future", rather, all of time is an open book to God (please read the verification of this concept in Islamic belief in chapter 9). Indeed, this is the essence of how prophets receive "prophesies", because God "sees" the future. So, remembering that we are henceforth quoting from texts that have been carbon dated at about 100 years or more before the coming of Jesus (pbuh), and that this dating is confirmed by literary analysis, and that the authors were a sect of very religious and devout Jews, considering all of this let us see what they have to say: Those who have studies the scrolls have noticed a common theme prevalent throughout these manuscripts, that is, most of the pesher texts prophesise the comming of a "Teacher of Righteousness" who will be sent by God to the Jews. This "Teacher of Rightousness" will be opposed by the "Teacher of Lies" and the "Wicked Priest". These scrolls also predict the coming of TWO messiahs. These two messiahs are referred to as a priestly and a temporal messiah. What we had here was a society of very devout Jews who were convinced that the time of the coming of the two messiahs was at hand, therefore, they set about preparing for their advent by detaching themselves from the mainstream society, and dedicating their lives to their worship and the preparation for their imminent arrival. In The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, by Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, we read that the early scrolls spoke of TWO messiahs, but that later on, the communities of the Jews began to combine them into one messiah: "As we have suggested, contrary to the well-known 'two-Messiah' theory of early Qumran scholarship, these references to the 'Messiah of Aaron and Israel' in the Damascus Document are singular not plural... and one possible explanation for it is that it is evoking a Messiah with both priestly and kingly implications, like the somewhat similar recitations of Hebrews"
(The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, p. 162). "According to the dominant view in the sectarian texts from Qumran, two messiahs were to lead the congregation in the End of Days, one priestly, and the other lay"
(Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, pp. 321-322). The Jews had prophesies of two messiahs. The first was best known to them for his "religious" or "preistly" works which he would perform. The second was best known to them for his "kingly" works. These two prophesies refer to Jesus (pbuh) and Muhammad (pbuh). Jesus (pbuh) was best know for his "preistly" works. However, he never lead an army, he never established a kingdom or a government, nor did he call his followers to wage war. Quite the opposite, he always called to peace and submissiveness and to leave the rule of the land to others (Matthew 22:21). He told his followers that he yet had many things to teach them but they could not bear them yet and that another would be coming after him who would teach them the complete truth (John 16:7-14). Muhammad (pbuh) too began his ministry preaching submissivness and passiveness. However, his ministry was allowed by God almighty to mature to a point where it was able to defend itself and establish justice in the earth and abolish evil. His followers fought many wars in the name of God and the Islamic empire finally stretched from China to Spain. Even those who did not follow Muhammad (pbuh) knew him well. However, what did they know him for? They knew him for his "kingly" actions and not for the "priestly" side of him that his followers knew. "And fight against them until persecution is no more and religion is for God alone.
But if they desist then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers"
Al-Bakarah(2):193. "Those unto whom We gave the Scripture recognize him (Muhammad) as they recognize their sons. But verilly, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it"
The Qur'an, al-Baqarah(2):146 Over time, the prophesies of the Jews began to become a little blurred, and this in addition to the continuous persecution of many nations towards the Jews eventually lead to their blending of these prophesies into one single prophesy and their aggrandizing of this one all-conquering wondrous event that would finally relieve them of their persecution and pave the way for them to march forth conquering all nations, and establishing themselves as the protectors of the kingdom of God. For this reason, when we read the Gospel of Barnabas, we find that when the Jews ask Jesus (pbuh) whether he is "the messiah" he responds to them that he is not "the messiah" that they are expecting. This is because he understood their question. They were not asking him for his title, rather, they wanted to know whether he was the one who would finally fulfill all of their prophesies of leadership, power, and grandeur that they had been waiting for for so many centuries. For this reason, he told them that he was not "the messiah", but that "the Messiah" they were waiting for would not come until later. He was referring to the SECOND messiah in their prophesies (please go back and read the very first part of the series mentioned above, where we read about the Jews expectations of THREE prophesies to be fulfilled). Lawrence Schiffman says regarding Pesher Habakkuk: "It (Pesher Habakkuk) describes the struggle between the Teacher of Righteousness and his opponents - the Man of Lies (also termed the Spouter or Preacher of Lies) and the Wicked Priest. The Spouter is pictured as heading a community. The dispute between the teacher and the Spouter is seems to have been based on matters of religious interpretation and law. The wicked priest is said to have begun his rule in truth but then to have abandoned the way of truth. He then persecutes the Teacher, confronting him on the holiest day of the year, the Day of Atonement".
(Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 228). This prophesy also continues in Pesher Psalms: "This text also mentions the familiar dramatis personae: the Teacher of Righteousness, termed 'the priest'; the wicked priest; and the Man of Lies. The Wicked Priest persecuted the Teacher and sought to kill him. The man of lies lead people astray".
(Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 229). What we begin to see in all of this is the story of the coming of Jesus (pbuh), his selection of Judas as one of the apostles, the deviance of Judas from the truth, how a sect of the Jews persecuted Jesus (pbuh), how this sect tried to deceive the masses and differed with Jesus (pbuh) regarding the truth of God's message, and finally, how they schemed with Judas to kill Jesus (pbuh). The Teacher of Righteousness is thus a reference to Jesus (pbuh); the "priestly" messiah. The Wicked Priest is a reference to Judas, and the Spouter of Lies is most likely the leader of the "chief priests and Pharisees" who persecuted Jesus (pbuh) and are mentioned so often in the Bible. Many Christian scholars have snatched up these prophesies in order to prove the validity of their claim that Jesus (pbuh) was indeed sent by God and that the Jews are required to follow him. However, they have been thwarted in their attempts by one other quite amazing piece of evidence that the Jews continually manage to refute their claims with, specifically, that the Dead Sea Scrolls claim that the coming messiah will be persecuted and that the Wicked Priest will try to kill him, but that the Wicked Priest WILL NOT BE SUCCESSFUL AND THAT IT IS HE WHO WILL RECEIVE THE FATE HE WISHED FOR THE MESSIAH. "The Wicked Priest went so far as to lie in ambush for the Teacher of Righteousness. In interpreting Psalms 37:32, "The Wicked watches for the righteous, seeking to put him to death," the text states: 'Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest who watched out for the Teacher of Righteousness and sought to put him to death'" (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 233).
So Judas will try to kill Jesus (pbuh). "The Wicked Priest began his career with the support of the sectarians, but he quickly lost his way and began to transgress in order to increase his wealth".
(Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 233).
Remember Matthew 26:15 "And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver". "Various theories have sought to identify the Teacher with Jesus, claiming that he was executed by the Wicked Priest. Had that been the case, the text would not have gone on to explain how God took vengeance against the priest by turning him over to the 'ruthless ones of the nations'. And according to this text, the teacher certainly survived the ambush. Indeed the entire passage is an interpretation of Psalms where the text continues, "The Lord will not abandon him (the Righteous), into his hand (the Wicked); He will not let him (the Righteous) be condemned in judgment (by the wicked)." (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, pp. 233-234). The author goes on to quote Pesher Habakkuk with regard to the Wicked Priest's intentions and his punishment. He says: "Ultimately, however, the Wicked Priest was punished: '.. because of his transgression against the Teacher of Righteousness and the men of his council, God gave him over to the hands of his enemies to afflict him with disease so as to destroy him with mortal suffering because he had acted wickedly against His chosen one'. The Wicked Priest's enemies tortured him which represents divine punishment for his attacks on the Teacher of Righteousness. The sufferings of the Wicked Priest are even more graphically described in another passage: 'and all his enemies arose and abused him in order for his suffering to be fit punishment for his evil. And they inflicted upon him horrible diseases, and acts of vengeance in the flesh of his body'. The one who suffered was the Wicked Priest, not the Teacher of Righteousness. The enemies of the Wicked Priest, the nation against whom he had made war, are said to have tortured him, so that his life ended in mortal disease and affliction." (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 234).
If we read the Gospel of Barnabas, we will find that when Judas came with the Roman troops in order to betray Jesus (pbuh), God raised Jesus (pbuh) unto Him and saved him. He then made Judas look and even speak like Jesus (pbuh) so that the Romans dragged him (Judas) away with them kicking and screaming that he was not Jesus (pbuh) but Judas. Even the Apostles were totally bewildered. After the Romans had their fill afflicting Judas with all manner of abuse and torture, he was finally taken to trial. By now he had totally given up hope of ever being believed. So now when he was asked, "art thou Jesus?" He replied "Thou sayest". In other words, "you will not believe me if I say otherwise, so why fight it any more". His enemies (the Romans) then took him, mocked him, kicked him, cut him, spat on him, humiliated him, and tortured him. Finally, they put him up on the cross. It appears, however, that shortly after they took him down, he disappeared from his tomb (maybe to live in disease and torment and die later on if he was not already dead). The Gospel of Baranabas then goes on to describe how Jesus (pbuh) returned to the apostles to tell them of how God had saved him from the hands of the Jews and the Romans and how the traitor (Judas) was taken instead. This is exactly what the Qur'an has been saying for 1400 years now; that Jesus (pbuh) was not forsaken by God to be killed by the conspiracy of the Jews and Judas, but that "it was made to appear so to them": "But when Jesus became conscious of their disbelief, he cried:
Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah?
The disciples said: We will be Allah's helpers. We believe in Allah, and bear you witness that we have surrendered (unto Him). Our Lord! We believe in that which You have revealed and we follow him whom You have sent. Enroll us among those who witness (to the truth).
And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them):
and Allah is the best of schemers"
The Qur'an, A'l-Umran(3):52-54. "And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger, and they slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them;
and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; for of a surety they slew him not"
The Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):157 The scrolls then go on to describe how "Kittim" (the Roman empire) and the kings of Greece would both try to take Jerusalem (the symbol of the faithful), but that it would be Kittim (the Romans) who would finally be successful. Remember how in part 14 of the previous series we described the stages of how the Roman empire eventually took control of the whole Christian religion and "protected" it and "spread" it? "Some texts also speak about an eschatological prophet who will announce the coming of the messiah, a figure similar to Elijah in the rabinnic tradition"
(Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 323).
Once again, please read part one of the previous series where it is made abundantly clear that not only were the Jews expecting a prophet to "clear the way" for Jesus (pbuh) and "announce" him (this was John the Baptist), but they also expected a second messiah to come after Jesus (pbuh). Referring to the manuscript titled The Rule of the Community, verse 9:11-12, Mr. Schiffman says: "this text unquestionably refers to two messiahs who will be announced by an eschatological prophet. Based on a the cave 4 manuscripts of Rule of the Community, the original publication team argued that this passage was added to the text later in the history of the sect. However, the evidence in these manuscripts does not sufficiently support such an assertion. As far as we can tell, the two-messiah concept was part of Rule of the Community from the time it was composed".
(Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 324). "And when there came unto them (the Jews) a Scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession though before that they were invoking Allah (for the coming of Muhammad) in order to gain victory over those who disbelieved, then when there came unto them that which they had recognized, they disbelieved in it. So let the curse of Allah be on disbelievers"
The Qur'an, Al-Baqarah(2):89 The Dead Sea Scrolls make mention of many more quite amazing and illuminating prophesies and parallels with the teachings of the Qur'an and Islam. There are also many parallels with the historical series of events presented in this book, such as the reference to the "seekers of smooth things" (simplifying the law of the religion) which sound amazingly similar to the description of Paul and his followers who "simplified" the religion of Jesus after his departure and removed all obligation from it all the while claiming that his authority came directly from "visions" of Jesus (pbuh). He is even quoted, while preaching this removal of obligation, as saying "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" 2 Corinthians 11:3 There is so much more that could be said about the Dead Sea Scrolls and their confirmation of the Qur'an and the mission of Muhammad, however, that will have to be left to a future article where, God willing, many more detailed examples of this sort shall be analyzed in detail. Misheal Al-Kadhi maalkadh@mailbox.syr.edu