muslim-christian dialougue
small giant
Christians believe that Jesus (pbuh) came to teach all of mankind the
religion of God and to show them the path to salvation. All mankind is
therefore required to follow his message and only those who believe in
the crucifixion and the redemption will be saved. They believe that
the Jews are also required to convert to Christianity since Jesus was
sent to them, therefore, they are the most qualified people to
recognize the word of God and the signs of Jesus (pbuh) to be found in
their own book. Most Jews, on the other hand, tell us that Jesus
(pbuh) was not a messenger of God, but rather a false prophet, a
sorcerer, an offspring of adulterers, and many other allegations. They
claim that there are no prophesies of Jesus (pbuh) in their book and
that he was not the promised Messiah/Christ (anointed one). Their
Messiah is yet to come. For this reason, they claim that they are not
required by God to follow Jesus (pbuh) and were justified in killing
him.
Muslims believe in both Moses and Jesus (pbut) as true prophets of
God. We believe that both Moses and Jesus as well as Noah, Abraham,
Jacob, and all the rest of the prophets of God were all truthful
messengers as well as faithful and faultless servants of Allah
Almighty. We also believe in the miracles of Jesus (pbuh), including
his miraculous birth. Muslims believe that each time a messenger of
God would pass away, mankind would begin to slowly fall back upon
their evil deeds until they had managed to corrupt His original
message. When this would happen, God Almighty would send a new prophet
to renew His original message to these people and return them to the
straight path. In this manner, the true message of Allah would always
be available to all those who searched for it until the day of
judgment. This can be seen in the Bible in such verses as Matthew
5:17-18 we read:
"Think not that I (Jesus) am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled, Fulfillment of Law of
Moses."
The Jews know God as "Elohiym" or "Yahweh." The Christians know Him as
"God," or "Father," or "Jehovah," etc.. Muslims know him as
"Allah" (and more than 99 other venerable names). Muslims believe that
Allah Almighty did not send down many messages to mankind but only
one: The religion of submission to His will, the uniqueness of
Himself, and the knowledge that He is the only one worthy of worship.
The details of the religion were molded to suite each individual
people, but the message was one message: "Allah is One. Worship Him
alone!" This is made apparent in the verse of Aal-Umran(3):84 which
states that which means:
"Say (O Muhammad): We believe in Allah, and that which is sent down
unto us, and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and
Isaac, and Jacob, and the sons of Jacob, and that which was vouchsafed
unto Moses and Jesus and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no
distinction between any of them and unto Him we have surrendered."
Also, in Al-Nisaa(5):138 we read that which means
"O you who believe! Believe in Allah and His messenger, and the
Scripture (Qur'an) which he has revealed unto His messenger, and the
Scripture which He revealed aforetime. Whosoever disbelieves in Allah
and His angels and His Scriptures and His messengers and the last day,
he verily has wandered far astray."
Muslims are told in the Qur'an that the unscrupulous few had managed
to pervert the words of God Almighty sent down to Jesus (pbuh) and the
previous prophets after the passing of their prophets. The well
meaning masses were then misled by what was claimed to be 100% the
"inspiration" of God. The changes made by these people have resulted
in countless contradictions between the verses. As we shall soon see,
these contradictions and changes have been well recognized and
documented in the West for centuries now. However, their actions have
been excused because they are assumed to have been well meaning and
were only trying to clarify that which was obscure and so forth when
they changed the word of God (See chapter 2). Whatever their motives,
these apologists forget the command of Deuteronomy 4:2
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye
diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD
your God."
The liberties mankind has taken with God's previous scriptures is one
of the reasons why God sent down the Qur'an as His last message to
mankind and took it upon Himself this time to personally preserve it
for all time from corruption or modification
Professor Arthur J. Arberry writes:
"Apart from certain orthographical modifications of the originally
somewhat primitive method of writing, intended to render unambiguous
and easy the task of reading the recitation, the Koran (Qur'an) as
printed in the twentieth century is identical with the Koran as
authorized by Uthman more than 1300 years ago."
On the other hand, Mr. C.G. Tucker says:
"...Thus Gospels were produced which clearly reflected the conception
of the practical needs of the community for which they were written.
In them the traditional material was used, but there was no hesitation
in altering it or making additions to it, or in leaving out what did
not serve the writer's purpose."
"The history of the Christians in the light of modern knowledge," C.
G. Tucker, p. 320
Mr. C.J. Cadoux has the following to say in his book "The life of
Jesus" :
"In the four Gospels, therefore, the main documents to which we must
go if we are to fill-out at all that bare sketch which we can put
together from other sources, we find material of widely differing
quality as regards credibility. So far-reaching is the element of
uncertainty that it is tempting to 'down tools' at once, and to
declare the task hopeless. The historical inconsistencies and
improbabilities in parts of the Gospels form some of the arguments
advanced in favor of the Christ-myth theory. These are, however,
entirely outweighed- as we have shown- by other considerations. Still
the discrepancies and uncertainties that remain are serious- and
consequently many moderns who have no doubt whatever of Jesus' real
existence, regard as hopeless any attempt to dissolve out of the
historically-true from the legendary or mythical matter which the
Gospels contain, and to reconstruct the story of Jesus' mission out of
the more historical residue."
Reverend Dr. Davies says:
"But to come to realities, no serious modern scholar believes that the
speeches appearing in the New Testament are verbatim records of what
the speaker said. Even as conservative a scholar as Headlam has to
admit that the speeches are 'in a sense' - he does not say what sense
- the author's 'own composition.' ... Schmidel, in his article on Acts
in the Encyclopedia Biblica, says unreservedly that 'it is without
doubt that the author constructed [the speeches] in each case
according to his own conception of the situation.' Schweitzer thinks
the speeches in Acts may be 'based upon traditions of speeches ...
actually delivered, but in the form in which we have them they
doubtless belong to the author of Acts and are adapted to his
representation of the facts," Rev. Davies goes on to quote Thucydides
who admits that "..[assigning fictitious speeches to Biblical
characters] was the universal ancient custom."
"The First Christian," Reverend Dr. Davies, pp. 23-24
Prof. J.R. Drummelow says:
"A copyist would sometimes put in not what was in the text, but what
he thought ought to be in it. He would trust a fickle memory, or he
would make the text accord with the views of the school to which he
belonged. In addition to the versions and quotations from the
Christian Fathers, nearly four thousand Greek MSS of the Testament,
were known to exist. As a result , the variety of reading is
considerable."
"Commentary on the Holy Bible," page 16
Not long after my arrival in the United States, I had the pleasure of
meeting a Christian gentleman who shall henceforth be referred to only
as Mr. J. Unlike this lowly author, Mr. J. is a "professional"
Christian. He also has a history of strong evangelical activity, at
least with the Muslim students of our university. Mr. J made himself
known to us through written letters to us, calls to our Muslim
chaplain, and his appearance before us on other occasions wherein he
called upon us to believe in Jesus (pbuh) and to accept his sacrifice.
Mr. J. had sent our Muslim chaplain and myself books with many
allegations against the Qur'an and a general condemnation of it. A
series of friendly discussions ensued between us and we have since
come to know each other quite well and have managed to remain friendly
and outgoing towards one another even with our differing beliefs.
However, the fact that this author is not a professional religious
person or a professional preacher, but rather a simple science
student, has made it necessary to schedule these matters around other
more immediate scholarly concerns. It was first and foremost the will
of Allah, then the continuous efforts of Mr. J., his claims regarding
Islam, and his sincere efforts to convert me and grant me salvation
which compelled me to step up my research of the Bible and the Qur'an
and ultimately, publish this book. I therefore thank Allah Almighty
that he sent Mr. J. to me as a blessing from Himself for me, and
hopefully for many others.
Before this book was written, I had published a series of articles in
a local publication which had been progressing slowly from exhibiting
some of the more minor examples of human modification to the Bible,
such as the fact that the authors of the Bible are not who they claim
to be, and had been working up to more fundamental issues. Mr. J asked
us to publish his counter viewpoint in our publication and we
accepted.
Mr. J believed that the examples of contradictory statements in the
Bible which we had been jointly discussing did not in any way affect
the founding beliefs of Christianity (see examples in chapter two). He
provided me with literature by men such as Mr. F.F. Bruce stating such
things as
"....Does it matter whether the New Testament documents are reliable
or not? Is it so very important that we should be able to accept them
as truly historical records?"
and also"......the story of Jesus as it has come down to us may be
myth or legend, but the teaching ascribed to him- whether he was
actually responsible for it or not - has a value all it's own," and so
forth.
Muslims know for a fact that Jesus (pbuh) was neither a myth nor a
legend but a true prophet of God, but we do feel that an inspired book
of God should contain no contradictions, historical or otherwise. For
this reason we do not believe that his book has reached us as it was
originally submitted by him.
Mr. J believes that such matters as knowing the true authors of the
books of the Bible are not crucial to a Christian's faith and
challenged us to prove that a Christian's basic faith is at all in
error and not the same message preached by Jesus 2000 years ago. In
compliance with his request, he was sent four very brief questions
concerning the founding beliefs of Christianity. He was then asked to
provide carefully researched and weighed answers to these questions.
These four questions are presented below. They have been slightly
modified in this book in order to ensure that they are as clear as
possible. The basic questions, however, remain the same:
1. IS THERE A TRINITY? If so then please present us with as many
Biblical references as you possibly can and briefly explain it's
fundamental concept. What I mean by this question is: Is God one,
period? Or is God three, period? Or is He some combination of one and
three? Please write down a brief but clear description of the nature
of the Trinity and the exact relationship of each of it's three
members to one-another. Please do not move on until you have done so
since your definition shall have to stand up to the test of the Bible
and be endorsed rather than refuted by the Biblical verses we shall be
studying throughout this book.
1. Is the great and faithful messenger of Allah, Jesus the son of Mary
(peace be upon them both), the PHYSICAL SON OF ALLAH OR NOT? If he is,
then give us as many biblical references as you possibly can. If not
then why does the majority of Christendom believe that he is the
physical/begotten/sired son of Allah?
1. Did Jesus (pbuh) HIMSELF ever say in the Bible "I am a god!," or
"Worship me!"? If so then give us as many Biblical references as
possible. If not, then why does the majority of Christendom believe
that he is a god (not a mortal), and the son of? Jesus (pbuh) is
invoked daily as God to forgive sins, cast out devils, and generally
sought after in prayer. UPON WHO'S AUTHORITY do Christians believe
that Jesus (pbuh) is God? Jesus (pbuh) himself or others? Give as many
references as possible.
1. If it can be proven, through the Bible, that Jesus (pbuh) is not
God, nor the physical/begotten/sired son of God, neither is there any
Trinity, then will this prove that the unscrupulous few have corrupted
the word of God or not?
"Faith" is without a doubt one of the most basic and fundamental
ingredients in the doctrine of any religious belief. However, when you
wish someone to believe in a given fundamental doctrine which you
propose, it is first necessary to prove the validity of your assertion
before you can ask that person to "have faith." In other words, faith
is indeed important, however, it can not precede the proof. Once the
proof has been established, only then can faith come into play. This
is indeed what prophet Jesus (pbuh) taught his followers during his
lifetime. Jesus (pbuh) did not simply show up before the Jews one day
and demand that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and everyone else accept him
without proof. Rather, he performed many miracles for them and at the
same time reasoned with them and used logic to convince them. The
Bible is full of examples of how Jesus (pbuh) would go out of his way
to explain things to his followers, reason with them and prove his
case to them.
Obviously, when we ask for proof that a given person taught a given
doctrine, the very first place to look for proof of this claim is the
words of that person himself. If I believe that Jesus (pbuh) taught a
given fundamental doctrine such as the Trinity, the "Son of God," the
"original sin," or the "atonement," then not only would I be justified
in expecting him to have mentioned it at least once throughout his
whole ministry, but I would expect him to have spoken of practically
nothing else. For this reason, the above four questions have been
proposed in order to arrive at the command of Jesus (pbuh). If Jesus
did indeed ever command that I should worship a Trinity or that I
should believe that he is God, then I would expect him to say so
clearly at least once in his whole life. If he says it at least once
then others shall be justified in repeating it a thousand times.
However, I want to first know ...
What did Jesus really say?
The Bible says:
"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my
words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and
make our abode with him."
John 14:23
Jesus (peace be upon him) clearly outlines here that it is his words
that we must keep and that shall lead to the love of God. Naturally, I
wish to know what Jesus said so that I might follow his command, and
his alone. Every one else's words without exception shall then be
either accepted or rejected based upon their conformance to the words
of the great and pious messenger of Allah, Jesus the son of Mary. Does
this sound fair?
The Christian world has performed a very admirable job in providing us
with Bibles in practically every size, language, shape and color.
Among these Bibles are the series of Bibles titled the "Red letter
editions." These Bibles are set apart from more conventional Bibles in
that the words of Jesus are distinguished from the rest of the text by
writing them in red ink. This makes the process of locating the words
of Jesus and differentiating them from those of everyone else much
simpler for the reader. Our goal in this book is to find evidence in
the RED ink of where Jesus (pbuh) himself ever taught mankind any of
the fundamental concepts of the religion which has been attributed to
him and which is named "Christianity". We shall see in what follows
that whenever someone tries to validate such doctrines they always
attempt to do so with the words in the BLACK ink and never the ones in
RED ink.
Muslims are told in the Qur'an that Jesus (pbuh) was one of the most
pious and elect messengers of God Almighty for all time. However, we
are also told that he was not himself a god, nor the physical son of
God. We read in the Qur'an:
"And when Allah said: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto mankind:
Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?* he said: Be You
glorified. It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I
used to say it, then You knew it. You know what is in my [innermost]
self but I know not what is in Yours. Truly! You, only You are the
Knower of things hidden. I spoke unto them only that which You
commanded me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I
was a witness over them while I dwelt among them, and when You took me
You were the Watcher over them, and You are Witness over all things."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):116-118
Obviously, both claims can not be true. Either Jesus (pbuh) did indeed
command mankind to worship him or he did not. Since my level of
knowledge of the words of the Bible obviously can not compare with
that of Mr. J., therefore, I was hoping that he could demonstrate to
me where Jesus actually said any of these things. Since the issues of
the Trinity, the Son of God, the original sin, and the atonement
comprise the most fundamental differences in belief between the
Islamic and Christian faith, therefore, I had hoped that in answering
these four very brief questions it might be possible to once and for
all arrive at the true command of Jesus. Mr. J's response follows:
1.1 Christian perspective
It is my great privilege and pleasure to have been invited to address
the readers [of this publication] on some of the most important
distinctions between Christianity and Islam. Four questions have been
proposed as a means of clarifying the Biblical perspective in relation
to the series of articles on Jesus and Christianity that appeared last
semester.
As I see it, all four questions essentially come together in one basic
question: Who is Jesus? The answer to that question, and the heart of
the message that has been proclaimed by followers of Jesus since His
advent, is that "you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God, and that by believing you may have life in His name." (John
20:31).
Addressing each of these questions may now help clarify this historic
Christian conviction.
1. Is there a Trinity?
The Biblical teaching of God's essential nature, summarized in the
word "Trinity," rests largely on our understanding of the identity of
Jesus, a question I will take up in some length under question #3.
At this point, perhaps a demonstration that the terminology for the
doctrine of the Trinity is found throughout the New Testament:
* "therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit..." (Matthew 28:19).
* "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are
different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different
kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men." (I
Corinthians 12:4-6).
* "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and
the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (II Corinthians
13:14).
* "But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith
and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait
for the mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal
life." (Jude 20-21).
The doctrine of the Trinity is perhaps best understood in terms of
Christian salvation. Christians believe that God the Father wills that
we be reconciled to Him from sin, and that He sent the Son, Who in His
perfect life and substitutionary death provides the basis of that
reconciliation, and that the Father now, in Jesus' name, sends the
Holy Spirit, Who applies the salvation of Jesus to the Christian
believers, thus saving them and empowering them to live lives of
victory over sin. Thus is the Christian's experience and assurance of
salvation in terms of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet
they absolutely believe that there is only one God. How do we put this
together? This is where the word "Trinity" comes in. It expresses this
truth about God as it is found in the Bible.
This is certainly not an exhaustive explanation, but it may help to
demonstrate the significance of the doctrine in practical Christian
life.
2. Is Jesus the physical (begotten/sired) son of GodSon of God?
Jesus is presented in the New Testament as the Son of God by virtue of
His unique eternal relationship with the Father and by means of His
unique virgin birth. We need to understand, then, how Jesus is the Son
of God. The New Testament tells us how:
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was
pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she
was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her
husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public
disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him
in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take
Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the
Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the
name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. (Matthew
1:18-21).
The question as stated implies that Jesus is somehow the result of a
physical union between God and Mary, but this is not at all the case.
Jesus' birth is a miraculous event through the agency of the Holy
Spirit. Thus the Son's deity is incarnated, or made flesh; in this
Jesus is the "God-man"
Begotten is the old English word that, while in human terms means to
have a child, the emphasis even there is that what a human father
"begets' shares in the essential nature of that father. It is in this
sense that the King James translates the Greek word monogenes as
"begotten ; Jesus shares the essential nature of the Father, but
rather through some physical act, but a supernatural one.
3. Did Jesus Himself ever say in the Bible "I am God!" or "worship
me!"?
What makes Jesus stand out from all other religious figures is the
nature of His claims about Himself. He claims the prerogatives of God,
the rightful object of a person's supreme allegiance, and receives
with out censure the worship and obedience of those who believe.
A number of examples may help to illustrate this:
A. Forgiveness of sins
In Mark 2:1-12, we read the account of Jesus healing a crippled man.
What is so surprising, and so shocking to His original audience, is
the statement that Jesus makes before healing the man.
As Jesus sees a group of men bring the paralytic to Him, Mark records
the scene:
When Jesus saw their faith , he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins
are forgiven."
Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to
themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming!
Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Immediately Jesus knew in his
spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he
said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to
say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up,
take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has
authority on earth to forgive sins..." He said to the paralytic, "I
tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." He got up, took his mat
and walked out in full view of them all.
B. Titles
Jesus in the Gospels appropriates two significant titles throughout
His ministry:
1. The Son of Man
This is the title that Jesus Himself uses most frequently. It is a
Messianic title derived from the Old Testament book of Daniel. When we
read the passage in Daniel, the implicit claim that Jesus is making
about Himself becomes apparent:
In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son
of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of
Days and was led into his presence. He (the son of man) was given
authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of
every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be
destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14).
2. The Son of God
At His trial Jesus affirmed this title: Again the high priest asked
him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said
Jesus. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of
the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven. (Mark 14:61-63).
C. Jesus' direct claims
At the climax of a lengthy argument, Jesus speaks of Himself: "Your
father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and
was glad." "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him,
"and you have seen Abraham!" "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered,
"before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to
stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple
grounds." (John 8:56-59).
The shock of this claim are those two words "I am." It is the same
designation that God used for Himself in His call to Moses: God said
to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the
Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:14).
D. Jesus receives worship
Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, Jesus
said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" "Who is he, sir?" the man
asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him.." Jesus said, "You have
now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.." Then the man
said, "Lord. I believe," and he worshipped him." (John 9:35-38).
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus
had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him...
(Matthew 28:16-17).
E. Jesus accepts divine entitlement
In what is a clear dialogue between Jesus and "Doubting" Thomas, we
read: Then Jesus said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands.
Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and
believe.." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus held
him," Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those
who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:27-29).
Does Jesus say, "I am God"? No, because that would have been
misunderstood. Jesus is not the Father (as it would have been
thought), Jesus is the Son. But He clearly claims an absolutely unique
relationship with God whom Jesus calls 'Father." Jesus claims
something about Himself that, through the various miracles, His
statements as cited above, and the response He receives from other
people, is slowly filled-out, and the meaning of His Sonship becomes
clear.
In the very opening of his Gospel, the Apostle John presents Jesus as
"the Word" and provides perhaps the clearest explanation of the
identity of Jesus, the meaning of the incarnation, and a further
glimpse into the reality of the Trinity:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were
made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was
life, and that life was the light of men. The Word became flesh and
made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the
One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John
1:1-4; 14).
4. If it can be proven, through the Bible, that Jesus is not God, nor
the physical/begotten/sired son of GodSon of God, neither is there any
trinity, then will this prove that the unscrupulous few have corrupted
the word of God?
The Christian message about Jesus revolves around three facts: the
incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. Prove from the
Bible or otherwise that any one of these three things are not true,
and like a three-legged stool the truth of the message would collapse.
Most "proofs" against the traditional teachings of Christianity
consist of pitting one passage of Scripture against another, and
almost always taking such passages out of context. Context, I believe,
always vindicates the understanding of God and of Jesus as I have here
tried to briefly present.
I would conclude, then, with an encouragement for the readers to read
the Bible, particularly one of the Gospels, for themselves. There, I
believe, the words and works of Jesus would provide a most convincing
reason to embrace Him as Lord and Savior, and find in Him the
spiritual satisfaction that so many today seek after.
1.2 Muslim perspective
(Note: the rest of chapter one is an expansion of the original
response to Mr. J's letter)
Thank you Mr. J for your most thought provoking letter. I would also
like to thank you for the knowledge you have provided therein. In what
is to follow I have striven to avoid objectionable or disrespectful
wording. This is an academic exchange and not a slug-fest. I am
however human. If one or two cases have slipped by me then I apologize
in advance for them. They were not intentional. I also realize that
this is quite a lengthy response for someone to read in one sitting.
However, I ask the reader to try to do so and not to pass judgment
until they have managed to receive a complete picture. Now, the
response:
The three faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all purport to
share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the
Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as "Tawhid" in Islam,
this concept of Oneness of God was stressed by Moses (pbuh) in the
Biblical passage Known as the "Shema," or the Jewish creed of faith:
"Hear, O Israel The Lord our God is one Lord"
Deuteronomy 6:4
It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus
(pbuh) when he said
"...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our
God is one Lord."
Mark 12:29
Muhammad (pbuh) came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the
same message again:
"And your God is One God: there is no god but He"
The noble Qur'an, al-Bakarah(2):163
Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God,
however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated
during the fourth century CE (see historical details in section
1.2.5). This doctrine, which continues to be the source of controversy
both within and outside the Christian religion, is known as the
Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons - the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - in one divine being. Christians
must guard themselves from ever claiming that they worship three gods
since this would be a heresy of the worst kind. Christians are
commanded to always refer to them all as ONE God. This belief, as we
shall soon see in coming chapters, was first put to words in the
famous "Creed of Nicea" in 325C.E. Among other things, it says:
"Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.
For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire he will
undoubtedly be lost forever. This is what the Catholic faith teaches:
we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity. We
distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance. For
the Father is a distinct person; the Son is a distinct person; and the
Holy Spirit is a distinct person. Still the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is. The Father is
uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The
Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is
boundless. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy
Spirit is eternal. Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings,
but one eternal being. Thus there are not three uncreated beings, nor
three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless
being. Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and
the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. Yet there are not three omnipotent
beings, but one omnipotent being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is
God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But there are not three gods, but one
God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.
There as not three lords, but one Lord. For according to Christian
truth, we must profess that each of the persons individually is God;
and according to Christian religion we are forbidden to say that there
are three gods or lords. ...But the entire three persons are coeternal
and coequal with one another....So that, as we have said, we worship
complete unity in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity. This, then, is
what he who wishes to be saved must believe about the Trinity....This is
the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly;
otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen."
Christian sects are many and varied. However, the majority of
Christians the world over believe in the following four basic
concepts:
1. The Trinity,
2. The divine Sonship of Jesus (pbuh),
3. The original sin, and
4. The death of "the Son of God" on the cross in atonement for the
original sin of Adam.
Everything else is pretty much relegated into the background. A
Christian can be saved and enter heaven by simply believing in the
above creeds. According to St. Paul, the previous law and commandments
of God are worthless, this simple belief will guarantee for all comers
eternal salvation. For example, St. Paul is quoted to have said:
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the
deeds of the law."
Romans 3:28.
The words of Saint Paul are held by most of Christianity in the
highest regard, and this is understandable since he is the primary
author of the majority of the books of the New Testament. However, no
matter what role St. Paul played in the definition and spread of
Christianity, when displaying respect for the teachings of Paul, it is
necessary not to lose sight of the fact that he is in no way equal to
Jesus, nor should his command be placed before the command of Jesus if
we were to find them to differ from one another. No one, not even Paul
or the apostles of Jesus has this right, since they are all, after
all, subordinate to Jesus Christ himself.
However, were we to study the religion known today as "Christ"ianity,
we would find that it is the interpretation of St. Paul of what he
personally believed to be the religion of Jesus(pbuh). Christianity as
it stands today has been reduced to an interpretation of the words of
Jesus (pbuh) within the context of what Paul taught rather than the
other way around which is the way it should be. We would expect
Christianity to be the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and that the words of
Paul and everyone else would be accepted or rejected according to
their conformity to these "Jesuit" teachings. However, we will notice
in what follows that Jesus (pbuh) never in his lifetime mentioned an
original sin, or an atonement. He never asked anyone to worship him,
neither did he ever claim to be part of a Trinity. His words and
actions are those of a loyal messenger of God who faithfully and
faultlessly followed the commands of his Lord and only told his
followers to do the same and to worship God alone (John 4:21, John
4:23, Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8 ...etc.).
Just one of the countless examples of this placement of the words of
Paul above the words of Jesus can be seen in the following analysis:
Jesus (pbuh) is claimed to have been prepared for his sacrifice on the
cross from the beginning of time and was a willing victim (otherwise
we would have to claim that God is a sadistic and torturous God who
forced Jesus into such a savage end). However, whenever Jesus (pbuh)
was asked about the path to "eternal life" he consistently told his
followers to only "keep the commandments" and nothing more (Matthew
19:16-21, John 14:15, John 15:10). Not once did he himself ever
mention an original sin or a redemption. Even when pressed for the
path to "PERFECTION" he only told his followers to sell their
belongings. He departed this earth leaving his followers with the very
dire threat:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilledJesus,
Fulfillment of Law of Moses. Whosoever therefore shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called
the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach
them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:18-19.
Obviously, heaven and earth have not yet passed. The fact that you are
reading this book bears witness to this very simple fact. So Jesus
(pbuh) is telling us that so long as creation exists, the commandments
will be required from his followers. Anyone who will dare to say
otherwise, until the end of time, will be called "the least in the
kingdom of heaven." Jesus (pbuh) had foreseen mankind's attempt to
distort and annul his commandments, the commandments of Moses (pbuh),
which he had taught his followers to keep and himself had kept
faithfully till the crucifixion, and was warning his followers in no
uncertain terms to be wary of all those who would attempt to do so.
Not long after, Jesus departs. Now Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul), a man
who never met Jesus (pbuh), a man who by his own admission persecuted
the followers of Jesus (pbuh) by every means within his power and
presided over their execution (see below), comes along. Suddenly one
day St. Paul receives a vision from Jesus (pbuh), and his whole life
is turned around. He now takes it upon himself through the authority
of his visions to spread the word of Jesus to the whole world and to
explain what Jesus really meant. Paul claims that the law of God
through Moses (pbuh) is worthless, decaying and ready to vanish away
and faith in the crucifixion is the only requirement for a Christian
to enter heaven (Romans 3:28, Hebrews 8:13...etc.). Who do Christians
listen to, Jesus or Paul? They listen to Paul. They take the words of
Paul literally and then "interpret" the words of Jesus (pbuh) within
the context of the words of Paul. No one takes the words of Jesus
(pbuh) literally and explains the words of Paul within the context of
Jesus' words.
According to this system of explaining the words of Jesus within the
context of Paul's teachings, Jesus never actually means what he says
but is constantly speaking in riddles which are not to be taken
literally. Even when people attempt to cite the words of Jesus as
confirming the teachings of Paul with regard to the original sin, the
atonement, ...etc. they never bring clear and decisive words where
Jesus actually confirms these things. Instead, they say such things as
"When Jesus spoke of the exodus he was really speaking of the
atonement" or so forth. Are we to believe that Paul is the only one
who can say what is on his mind clearly and decisively while Jesus
(pbuh) is not capable of articulating what he means clearly and
decisively but requires interpreters to explain the "true" meaning of
what he said, and to explain how, when he spoke of the commandments,
he was not talking of "the commandments" but of a spiritual
commandment and that they will now tell you what this spiritual
commandment is that Jesus never managed to talk clearly about?.
It is interesting to note that Jesus was not talking in riddles when
he commanded his followers to keep the commandments but was talking of
the actual physical commandments of Moses. This can be clearly seen by
reading for instance Luke 18:20 where Jesus spells out in no uncertain
terms what he means by "keep the commandments."
"And I (Jesus) have come confirming that which was before me of the
Torah, and to make lawful for you part of that which was forbidden
upon you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord so seek
refuge in Allah and obey me"
The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):50
In the past, I have searched for a logical answer to this puzzle by
posing the following questions to respected Christian clergy:
1. According to you, Jesus is supposed to have been prepared for the
"atonement" from the beginning of time. He should know that it is
coming.
2. Whenever he was asked about the path to "eternal life" (i.e.
Matthew 19:16-22 ..etc.) he consistently told his followers to only
"keep the commandments" just as he had "kept my father's
commandments" ..etc.
3. Even when he was pressed for more, he only told his followers that
in order to be PERFECT they needed only to sell their belongings.
4. Not once did he mention an "atonement" or and "original sin."
5. The commandments he spoke about were the commandments of Moses and
not some "spiritual" commandments. This can be seen in the text itself
where Jesus (pbuh) explicitly spells out some of the commandments of
Moses one by one.
6. St. Paul, a disciple of a disciple, is the one who is followed by
Christianity and not Jesus. Jesus' teachings are explained within the
context of Paul's teachings and not vice versa.
Whenever this question would be presented to a respected member of the
Christian clergy the response would always be the same: "Well, don't
take Jesus' words literally. St. Paul has told us in Romans ...," or
"Yes, but St. Paul tells us in Galatians ....," or "St. Paul tells us
in Corinthians .." Yet my question remains: where did JESUS every say
it? Where does the RED ink say it? Doesn't St. Paul's authority come
from Jesus? I simply want a single clear statement from Jesus himself
where he endorsed Paul's claims and then it would be possible to
accept Paul's claim that he was indeed preaching the "command of
Jesus." If Jesus were only to say it once then I can accept Paul
repeating it a thousand times. However, as we shall soon see, never,
not even once in his whole lifetime did Jesus (pbuh) endorse the
preachings of Paul.
Getting back to the matter at hand, the reader will notice in Mr. J's
response a surprising absence of certain very fundamental verses
usually quoted by any Christian man or woman off the street in defense
of the "Trinity" and other issues. The reader may further surmise that
Mr. J might not be well versed enough in the Bible to have referred to
these verses. This is far from the case. His occupation requires that
he know those verses. The fact of the matter is that I have had an
ongoing correspondence with Mr. J for a number of months now which he
has now asked be publicized. In this correspondence, many of these
fundamental verses were dealt with in detail and refuted for various
reasons. This is why he did not quote them here. However, in order
that all may benefit from this information we will quote these same
verses that he has elected not to. We will also study the other verses
he has presented.
1.2.1 "Blind faith" or "Prove all things"?
Before actually getting down to our response, let us first establish
the ground rules. All Bibles in existence today tell us that
Christians are taught by Jesus (pbuh) himself:
"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O
Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,
and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment."
Mark 12:29-30.
They are also told
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"
1 Thessalonians 5:21
and "For God is not [the author] of confusion"
1 Corinthians 14:33.
So, contrary to the teachings of many, Jesus (pbuh) did not want his
followers to believe everything they were told on "blind faith."
Rather, he wanted his followers to believe "with all thy mind." He
wanted us to THINK in order to protect his words from corruption. Let
us comply with the teaching of Allah's elect messenger, Jesus (peace
be upon him), and see where the truth and our minds will lead us:
1.2.2: The "Trinity," or 1+1+1=1
"Opeople of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of
Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was [no more
or less than] a messenger of Allah, and His word, which he bestowed
upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from Him: so believe in Allah and
his messengers. Say not "Three": desist!, it is better for you, for
Allah is one god, Glory be to Him, Far exalted is He above having a
son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough
is Allah as a disposer of affairs."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissah(4):171
"Or have they (mankind) chosen gods from the earth who raise the dead
If there were therein gods besides Allah then verily both (the heavens
and the earth) would have gone to ruin. Glorified be Allah, the Lord
of the throne from all they ascribe (unto Him)"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Anbia(21):21-22
"Allah coineth a similitude: A man in relation to whom are several
partners quarreling, and a man belonging wholly to one man. Are the
two equal in similitude? Praise be to Allah, but most of them know
not."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Zumar(39):27.
In other words, which would be more conducive of harmony: For an
employee to have two bosses quarreling over him, or for each employee
to have only one boss?
"Say (O Muhammad, to the disbelievers): If there were other gods along
with Him, as they say, then they would have sought a way against the
Lord of the Throne. Glorified is He, and High Exalted above what they
say! The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise
Him, and there is not a thing but hymns his praise; but you understand
not their praise. Lo! He is ever Clement, Forgiving."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Israa(17):42-44.
"And say: Praise be to Allah, Who has not taken unto Himself a son,
and Who has no partner in the Sovereignty, nor has He any ally through
dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Israa(17):111.
"Allah has not chosen any son, nor is there any God along with Him;
else would each God have assuredly championed that which he created,
and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be
Allah above all that they allege. Knower of the invisible and the
visible! and exalted be He over all that they ascribe as partners
(unto Him)!"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Muminoon(23):91-92.
The concept of the "Trinity" as originally adopted by Christianity
three centuries after the departure of Jesus (see historical details
at the end of this chapter) and taught to Christians ever since is the
merging of three entities into one similar entity while remaining
three distinct entities. In other words: Three bodies fold, blend, or
merge into one body so that they become one entity while at the same
time exhibiting the characteristics of three distinct and separate
entities. It is described as "a mystery." As we just read, the first
definition of the Trinity was put forth in the fourth century as
follows: "...we worship one God in the trinity, and Trinity in
Unity...for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son,
another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but
one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal...he
therefore that will be saved must thus think of the
trinity..." (excerpts from the Athanasian creed).
When the Church speaks of worship, God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are
claimed to be one being. This is because verses such as Isaiah
43:10-11 and countless others are very explicit in affirming that God
Almighty is ONE. However, when they speak of "the death of God" it is
Jesus (pbuh) who is claimed to have died and not God or the "Trinity."
Now the three are separate. When God is described as having "begotten"
a son it is not the "Trinity" nor Jesus (pbuh) which has begotten, but
a distinctly separate being from the other two... there are many such
examples. So how do we resolve this problem? Do we simply have blind
faith or do we "love the Lord thy God ... with all thy mind,"?. If we
chose the later course of action then we shall first need to specify
what authority we shall accept in our recognition of the true divine
nature of God Almighty.
When God Almighty sends down a revelation, He addresses it to the
common man, the carpenter, the blacksmith, the local merchant. God
does not reveal His scriptures in a language that only the deep
thinkers, the most learned scholars, and those with Ph.D.s in rocket
science alone can understand. This is not to say that it is not
necessary to consult people of authority in this scripture in times of
difficulty regarding matters of secondary importance, however, if it
were impossible for the common man to even recognize from his
scripture who is God, or "who do I worship?" without extensive
external influences from learned clergymen, then I am sure you will
agree that not very many people shall ever be guided to the truth of
this scripture and the basic message contained therein.
The matter of "who do I worship" is without a doubt the hands-down
most important, nay crucial, piece of information that must be
provided a reader of a divine scripture before they can accept a
single word of this scripture. This matter must be made exceedingly
clear to them before they can accept a single commandment. If I wish
to work for a company but I do not know who is(are) my boss(s) then
how can I know what he(they) want me to do? How can I know which
commands to follow and which not to?
For the same reason, we would be justified in expecting that if we
were to present a native of the jungles of Zimbabwe with a copy of a
divine scripture in it's original language, and we were to leave
without saying a single word to him, then we would expect that at the
very least, this person should be able to extract from this scripture
the nature of the One who inspired this book.
Therefore, let us begin by drawing a table and including in this table
some commands of the Bible where we are explicitly commanded to
recognize that God is one, and also all verses where it explicitly
commands us to believe that He is three. Once the Bible commands me to
believe that God is three in one then I shall not ask for an
explanation or a justification. I do not need God to explain "how" He
can be "one" and also "three" at the same time. All I want is for the
Bible to command me to believe that this is so and then command me to
have blind faith. Here is our table:
- Explicit Statement
God is ONE -
God is THREE -
Now that we have built this table we are ready to proceed. Let us
begin by filling in the first line.
In the Bible we read:
1. "Know therefore this day, and consider [it] in thine heart, that
the LORD he [is] God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath:
[there is] none else." Deuteronomy 4:39.
2. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3
3. "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is]
Jealous, [is] a jealous God:" Exodus 34:14
4. "Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have
chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am]
he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after
me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no savior."
Isaiah 43:10-11.
5. "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD
of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there
is] no God." Isaiah 44:6
6. "That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none
else." Isaiah 45:6
7. "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that
formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it
not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there
is] none else." Isaiah 45:18.
8. "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I
[am] God, and [there is] none else." Isaiah 45:22
This is only a brief sampling, however, it is sufficient for now. So
let us fill in the table.
- Explicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14
God is THREE -
So now let us move on and fill in the second line. Let us start with
the verses quoted by Mr. J.
Mr. J. has presented us with Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II
Corinthians 13:14, and Jude 1:20-21 as proof of the claim that God
Almighty is three-in-one. Let us study them. But first, let us clearly
define our goal. When I asked for a verse wherein God is explicitly
claimed to be "three in one," what I wanted was a verse that says
something like "God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are all gods, however,
they are not three gods but one God," or "God, Jesus, and the Holy
Ghost are the same being," or "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one
and the same" etc.
Just because the words "God," "Jesus," and "Holy Ghost" might appear
together in one verse does not mean this verse requires a "Trinity,"
or "merging of three into one." Even if this verse also contains the
word "one" this still does not necessarily require a "Trinity." For
example, if I say "Joe, Jim, and Frank speak one language" this is not
the same as saying "Joe, Jim, and Frank are one person." As we shall
see, the examples Mr. J. has presented are all at best implicit
statements, so let us begin by modifying our table and inserting these
verses:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is THREE None so far Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II
Corinthians 13:14, Jude 1:20-21
1.2.2.1 Matthew 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to "Go ye
therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the
United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union," does this require
that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one
in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that
they are the same physical entity.
Further, the "Great Commission" as narrated in the Gospel of Mark,
bears no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark
16:15). As we shall see in chapter two, Christian historians readily
admit that the Bible was the object of continuous "correction" and
"addition" to bring it in line with established beliefs. They present
many documented cases where words were "inserted" into a given verse
to validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor of
the Toronto Star says:
"All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the
latter part of this command was inserted later. The formula occurs
nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence
available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did
not baptize people using these words - baptism was 'into' or 'in' the
name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read
'baptizing them in my name' and then was expanded to work in the
dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars
as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the
accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when
Peake's commentary was first published: 'The church of the first days
did not observe this world-wide commandment, even if they new it. The
command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal
expansion.'"
"For Christ's sake," Tom Harpur, p. 103
This is confirmed in 'Peake's Commentary on the Bible' published since
1919, which is universally acclaimed and considered to be the standard
reference for students of the Bible. It says:
"This mission is described in the language of the church and most
commentators doubt that the Trinitarian formula was original at this
point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a
formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the
Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.)."
For example, these Christian scholars observed that after Jesus
allegedly issued this command and then was taken up into heaven, the
apostles displayed a complete lack of knowledge of this command.
"And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;...'"
Acts 2:38.
These Christian scholars observed that it is extremely unlikely that
if Jesus had indeed specifically commanded his apostles to "baptize in
the name of the father and the son and the holy Ghost" that the
apostles would later disobey his direct command and baptize only in
the name of Jesus Christ, alone.
As a final piece of evidence, it is noted that after the departure of
Jesus, when Paul decided to preach to the Gentiles, this resulted in a
heated debate and a great difference of opinion between him and at
least three of the apostles. This would not be the case if Jesus had,
as claimed, openly commanded them to preach to the Gentiles (see
section 6.13 for more). So we notice that not only does this verse
never claim that the three are one, or even that the three are equal,
but most scholars of Christianity today recognize that at the very
least the last part of this verse ("the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost") was not originally part of the command of Jesus but was
inserted by the church long after Jesus' departure.
1.2.2.2 I Corinthians 12:4-6
"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there
are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are
diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in
all."
If I were to say: "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Santa
Claus. And there are differences of administrations, but the same
government. And there are a diversity of operations, but the same God
worketh all in all." Do God, the US government and Santa Claus now
form another "Trinity"? Is this indeed how this verse was meant to be
read? Is it impossible to receive "gifts," "administrations," and
"operations" except from ONE person? There is a big difference between
this verse and between saying "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one
and the same." Even in the very best case, no one who reads I
Corinthians 12:4-6 will claim that it explicitly states that the three
are one, they themselves will have to admit that it only implies such
a connection. So now we need to ask: Why would God Almighty need to
resort to implying His triune nature if this is indeed what He
intended? What is preventing Him from simply coming out and stating
His intent clearly if this is indeed what He meant?
Why does everything have to be so abstract? If this is the true nature
of God then why can't the Bible just come out and say "God, Jesus, and
the Holy Ghost are physically joined in one being" or "God, Jesus, and
the Holy Ghost are one and the same." Is this so very hard? Look at
how much less space this would require. Look at how infinitely more
clear and decisive that would be. Look at the clear cut decisiveness
of Deuteronomy 4:39
"Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the
LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is
none else."
God does not philosophize and speak all the way around matters. He
speaks clearly and in no uncertain terms so that there can be no doubt
as to what He meant. If God was indeed a Trinity why would He not
simply just come out and say so, just as clearly and decisively as He
does when He speaks about his uniqueness?
1.2.2.3 II Corinthians 13:14
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the
communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen."
If I say: "May the genius of Einstein, the philosophy of Descartes,
and the strength of Schwarzenegger be with you all" does this require
all three to be joined in a "Trinity"? Does it require that Einstein
is Descartes (or a different "side" of Descartes)? Does it require
that Descartes is Schwarzenegger (or a different "side" of
Schwarzenegger)?
1.2.2.4 Jude 1:20-21
"But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith,
praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking
for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life."
By now we begin to get the picture. Do these verses require a
Trinity?. Do they say "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are ONE God?" If
a father told his sons who were going off to war "But ye, beloved,
building up yourselves on your training, obeying your superior
officers, Keep yourselves in the love of your country while you look
for the mercy of God to return you home to us safely," can we honestly
claim that this statement requires a "merging of three into one"?.
Deuteronomy 4:39 requires the uniqueness of God. It is very explicit.
There are no two ways about it. It is very clear, decisive, and to the
point. The explicit (and not the "hidden") meaning is quite clear and
direct. Is it impossible to find the Bible only a single verse that is
similarly decisive about the claimed Trinity?. All of these verses
require you to really strain the words and stretch their meaning to
arrive at any merging of three into one.
With regard to Mr. J.'s description of the Trinity please read the
analysis of the original sin and the redemption coming up soon.
An interesting point is that when people tell us about the doctrine of
the "Trinity," even in the very best case, they never try to claim
that any Jew knew of this formula before the coming of Jesus (pbuh) or
worshipped a "Triune" God. However, God Almighty was sending prophets
to the Jews for centuries before the time of Jesus, and Jesus is
claimed to have been in existence before all of creation. Why did none
of these previous prophets tell their people that God was three?. They
went out of their way to make it very explicitly clear that God was
ONE as seen in the above examples, however, there is not a single Jew
alive who worships a Trinity, believes that the Holy Spirit mentioned
in their Old Testament is God, or worships a "Son of God." Even if the
Jews do not believe that Jesus is the "Son of God," would we not be
justified in expecting that they should at least believe that "there
is" a "Son of God" even if he was someone other than Jesus? Would we
not be justified in expecting the previous prophets to have mentioned
this fact? Why did God wait to favor us alone with this knowledge and
chose to deprive many countless thousands of generations before Jesus
the knowledge of this claimed fact? Did the countless prophets of the
Old Testament not know about the "Trinity"? Did God not see fit to
tell the Jews about the Trinity? Was God not yet a "Trinity" when He
sent Abraham (pbuh) to his people? Was He not yet a "Trinity" when He
spoke to Moses (pbuh)? Did He become a "Trinity" later on? How then do
we explain the Christian creed of Nicea, the official Church
definition of the "Trinity" which requires the "co-eternity" and "co-
substantiality" of Jesus with God? But let us continue with our
analysis. Let us begin by updating our table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is THREE - Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
When someone speaks to someone else about a specific matter, they
usually spend the majority of their time explaining the major issues
and much less time on side-issues. For instance, if I wanted to give
someone my favorite recipe for chicken parmesan I would spend most of
my time speaking about the ingredients, their amounts, their order of
combination, the amount of time needed to cook each one and so on. I
would spend very little time (comparatively) talking about how to set
the table or what color bowl to serve it in. When comparing this
observation to the Bible, I found that for a matter of such profound
and dire importance, the "Trinity" is never mentioned in the Bible at
all. Sound preposterous? Read on.
Let us first begin by modifying our table and including all of the
verses of the Bible which are used today in defense of the "Trinity."
The reason for these modifications shall be made clear in our
analysis.
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28,
John.14:6,
John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.5 1 John 5:7
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus,
and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have
been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now
universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and
all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version
the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the
New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all
unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? The
scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation
for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says:
"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any
Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century.
It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of
early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated
would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is
therefore evidently spurious."
Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this
verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the
heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and God's people.
Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an
insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating
a "Trinity" therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God
chose to inspire someone to insert this verse in order to clarify the
true nature of God as being a "Trinity." Notice how mankind was being
inspired as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the
departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths
of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations
whatsoever. They were being "inspired" (see chapter two).
If these people were being "inspired" by God, I wondered, then why did
they need to put these words into other people's mouths (in our
example, in the mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say "God
inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name"? Also,
why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to
"inspire" his "true" nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?
The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains
the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible
with the following words:
"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of
which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the
Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming
invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy
to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the
Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by
Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum
Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is
still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and
fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The
three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the
prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors;
the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing
of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange
misapprehension, of Theodore Beza."
"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.
Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the
brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish
devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only
first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year 400C.E.
(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).
Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbon later said
"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and
enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any
quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses
would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind,
authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this
spurious text."
To which Mr. Bentley responds:
"In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the
interpolation."
Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed, just as Mr. Gibbon had
predicted, the simple fact that the most learned scholars of
Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a later
interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of this
fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the
hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still
unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without
so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of
Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.
Peake's Commentary on the Bible says
"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even
in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father,
the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early
Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it.
Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate
and finally the NT of Erasmus."
It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir
Isaac Newton from openly revealing these facts to all:
"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the
Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the
text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in
everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and
would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their
books... Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can
make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is
scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in
places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with
what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and
superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond
of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand
least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have
that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and
therefore take that to be his which is the best"
Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156
According to Newton, this verse first appeared for in the third
edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament.
For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty two biblical
scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations got
together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based
upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today,
they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the
unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated
insertion that it is. For more on the compilation of the RSV Bible,
please read the preface of any modern copy of that Bible.
Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus
(pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a "colt", or was it an "ass and a
colt"? see point 42 in the table of section 2.2) into Jerusalem are
spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a
prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read:
"And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you:
and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied,
whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring [him]. And if any man say
unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and
straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and
found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met;
and they loose him And certain of them that stood there said unto
them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as
Jesus had commanded: and they let them go And they brought the colt to
Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many
spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the
trees, and strawed [them] in the way And they that went before, and
they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that
cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father
David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."
Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of
this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of
any description of the "Trinity" which is supposedly a description of
the very nature of the one who rode this ass, who is claimed to be the
only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of
mankind. I found myself asking the question: If every aspect of
Christian faith is described in such detail such that even the
description of this ass is so vividly depicted for us, then why is the
same not true for the description of the "Trinity"? Sadly, however, it
is a question for which there is no logical answer.
Once again, here is the table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1, John 10:30 John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.6 John 1:1
Another verse quoted in defense of the "Trinity" is the verse of John
1:1 :
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God."
When I first learned of this verse it appeared to me that I had
finally found my elusive goal. However, after substantial research
into Christian theological literature, I would later come to learn
that this verse too can not be interpreted to justify a "triune" God.
My own experience has shown that this verse is the one most popularly
quoted by most Christians in defense of the Trinity. For this reason I
shall spend a little more time in it's analysis than in the analysis
of the other verses.
First of all, it is quite obvious from simply reading the above verse
that even in the very best case, this verse speaks only of a "Duality"
not a "Trinity." Even the most resolute conservative Christian will
never claim to find in this verse any mention whatsoever of a
"merging" of a Holy Ghost with God and "the Word." So even if we were
to accept this verse at face value and just have faith, even then, we
find ourselves commanded to believe in a "Duality" and not a
"Trinity." But let us see if this verse does in fact even command us
to believe in a "Duality." To do this we need to notice the following
points:
1) Mistranslation of the text:
In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak
Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a
god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful
and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will
find exactly this wording).
Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse
is honestly presented as
"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the
Word was divine."
The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M.
Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173
And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God"
we read
"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God
[=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"
The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317
In yet another Bible we read:
"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was
with God, the Logos was divine"
The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James
Moffatt
Please also see "The Authentic New Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield
and many others.
If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact
same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God
Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of
translation has been changed:
"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them
which believe not."
According to the system of the previous verse and the English
language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also
have been written as "The God" with a capital "G." If Paul was
inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why
should we change it? Why is "The God" translated as simply "the god"
when referring to the devil, while "divine" is translated as the
almighty "God" when referring to "The Word"? Are we now starting to
get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?
Well, what is the difference between saying "the word was God," and
between saying "the word was a god (divine)"? Are they not the same?
Far from it! Let us read the bible:
"I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of
the most High"
Psalms 82:6:
"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh"
Exodus 7:1
"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them
which believe not."
2 Corinthians 4:4
What does all of this mean? Let me explain.
In the West, it is common when one wishes to praise someone to say
"You are a prince," or "You are an angel" ..etc. When someone says
this do they mean that that person is the son of the King of England,
or a divine spiritual being? There is a very slight grammatical
difference between saying "You are a prince" and between saying "You
are THE prince," however, the difference in meaning is quite
dramatic.
Further, it is necessary when translating a verse to also take into
account the meaning as understood by the people of that age who spoke
that language. One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands
today is that it forces us to look at ancient Hebrew and Aramaic
scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are
neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called "original"
manuscripts of the NT available today are written in Greek or Latin.
The Jews had no trouble reading such verses as Psalms 82:6, and Exodus
7:1, while still affirming that there is only one God in existence and
vehemently denying the divinity of all but God Almighty. It is the
continuous filtration of these manuscripts through different languages
and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church's extensive efforts
to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew Gospels (see last
quarter of this chapter) which has led to this misunderstanding of the
verses.
The Americans have a saying: "Hit the road men." It means "It is time
for you to leave." However, if a non-American were to receive this
command without any explanation then it is quite possible that we
would find him beating the road with a stick. Did he understand the
words? Yes! Did he understand the meaning? No!
In the Christian church we would be hard pressed to find a single
priest or nun who does not address their followers as "my children."
They would say: "Come here my children", or "Be wary of evil my
children" ... etc. What do they mean?
A fact that many people do not realize is that around 200AD spoken
Hebrew had virtually disappeared from everyday use as a spoken
language. It was not until the 1880s that a conscious effort was made
by Eliezer Ben-Yehudah to revive the dead language. Only about a third
of current spoken Hebrew and basic grammatical structures come from
biblical and Mishnaic sources. The rest was introduced in the revival
and includes elements of other languages and cultures including the
Greek and Arabic languages.
Even worse than these two examples are cases when translation into a
different languages can result in a reversal of the meaning. For
example, in the West, when someone loves something they say "It warmed
my heart." In the Middle East, the same expression of joy would be
conveyed with the words: "It froze my heart." If an Mideasterner were
to greet a Westerner with the words: "It froze my heart to see you,"
then obviously this statement would not be greeted with a whole lot of
enthusiasm from that Westerner, and vice versa. This is indeed one of
the major reasons why the Muslims have been so much more successful in
the preservation of their holy text than the Christians or the Jews;
because the language of the Qur'an has remained from the time of
Muhammad (pbuh) to the present day a living language, the book itself
has always been in the hands of the people (and not the "elite"), and
the text of the book remains in the original language of Muhammad
(pbuh). For this reason, a translator must not and should not
"translate" in a vacuum while disregarding the culture and traditions
of the people who wrote these words. As we have just seen, it was
indeed quite common among the Jews to use the word "god" (divine) to
convey a sense of supreme power or authority to human beings. This
system, however, was never popularly adopted by them to mean that
these individuals were in any way omnipotent, superhuman, or equal to
the Almighty.
2) Basic message of John:
Now that we have seen the correct translation of the verse of John
1:1, let us go a little further in our study of the intended meaning
of this verse. This verse was taken from the "Gospel of John." The
very best person to ask to explain what is meant by a given statement
is the author of that statement himself. So let us ask "John" what is
his mental picture of God and Jesus (pbuh) which he wishes to convey
to us:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his
lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."
John 13:16.
So the author of John tells us that God is greater than Jesus. If the
author of this Gospel did indeed wish us to understand that Jesus and
God are "one and the same," then can someone be greater than himself?
Similarly,
"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto
you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the
Father: for my Father is greater than I."
John 14:28.
Can someone "go" to himself? Can someone be "greater" than himself?
"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said,
Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may
glorify thee:"
John 17:1.
If John meant to tell us that "Jesus and God are one and the same"
then shall we understand from this verse that God is saying to Himself
"Self, glorify me so that I may glorify myself"? Does this sound like
this is the message of John?
"While I (Jesus) was with them in the world, I kept them in thy
(God's) name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them
is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be
fulfilled."
John 17:12.
If the author of John wanted us to believe that Jesus and God are one
person then are we to understand from this verse that God is saying to
Himself "Self, while I was in the world I kept them in your name,
self. Those who I gave to myself I have kept ..."? Is this what the
author intended us to understand from his writings?
"Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me
where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me:
for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."
John 17:24.
Similarly, did the author intend us to interpret this as "Self, I will
that they also whom I have given myself be with me where I am; that
they my behold my glory which I have given myself, for I loved myself
before the foundation of the world"?
So, we begin to see that in order to understand the writings of a
given author, it is necessary to not take a single quotation from him
in a vacuum and then interpret his whole message based upon that one
sentence (and a badly mistranslated version of that sentence at that).
3) Who wrote the "Gospel of John"?:
The "Gospel of John" is popularly believed by the majority of regular
church-goers to be the work of the apostle John the son of Zebedee.
However, when consulting Christianity's more learned scholars of
Church history, we find that this is far from the case. These scholars
draw our attention to the fact that internal evidence provides serious
doubt as to whether the apostle John the son of Zebedee wrote this
Gospel himself. In the dictionary of the Bible by John Mckenzie we
read
"A. Feuillet notes that authorship here may be taken loosely."
Such claims are based on such verses as 21:24:
"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote
these things: and we know that his testimony is true."?
Did the apostle John write this about himself? Also see 21:20, 13:23,
19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20-23. The "disciple who Jesus loved"
according to the Church is John himself, but the author of this gospel
speaks of him as a different person.
Further, The Gospel of John was written at or near Ephesus between the
years 110 and 115 (some say 95-100) of the Christian era by this, or
these, unknown author(s). According to R. H. Charles, Alfred Loisy,
Robert Eisler, and other scholars of Christian history, John of
Zebedee was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE, long before the
fourth Gospel was written. Did the Holy Ghost "inspire" the apostle
John's ghost to write this gospel sixty years after he was killed? .
In other words, what we have here is a gospel which is popularly
believed to have been written by the apostle John, but which in fact
was not written by him. In fact no one really knows for certain who
wrote this gospel.
"Since the beginning of the period of modern critical study, however,
there has been much controversy about [the Gospel of John's]
authorship, place of origin, theological affiliations and background,
and historical value"
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 2, Abingdon Press,
p. 932
4) Who "inspired" the author of this gospel to write this verse?:
The words of John 1:1 are acknowledged by most reputable Christian
scholar of the Bible as the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria
(20BC-50AD), who claimed no divine inspiration for them and who wrote
them decades before the "gospel of John" was ever conceived. Groliers
encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading "Logos"("the
word"):
"Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make logos a central
concept ......In the New Testament, the Gospel According to Saint John
gives a central place to logos; the biblical author describes the
Logos as God, the Creative Word, who took on flesh in the man Jesus
Christ. Many have traced John's conception to Greek origins--perhaps
through the intermediacy of eclectic texts like the writings of Philo
of Alexandria."
T. W. Doane says:
"The works of Plato were extensively studied by the Church Fathers,
one of whom joyfully recognizes in the great teacher, the schoolmaster
who, in the fullness of time, was destined to educate the heathen for
Christ, as Moses did the Jews. The celebrated passage : "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was
God" is a fragment of some Pagan treatise on the Platonic philosophy,
evidently written by Irenaeus. It is quoted by Amelius, a Pagan
philosopher as strictly applicable to the Logos, or Mercury, the Word,
apparently as an honorable testimony borne to the Pagan deity by a
barbarian........We see then that the title "Word" or "Logos," being
applied to Jesus, is another piece of Pagan amalgamation with
Christianity. It did not receive its authorized Christian form until
the middle of the second century after Christ. The ancient pagan
Romans worshipped a Trinity. An oracle is said to have declared that
there was 'First God, then the Word, and with them the Spirit'. Here
we see the distinctly enumerated, God, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit
or Holy Ghost, in ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of
this capital - that of Jupiter Capitolinus - was dedicated to three
deities, which three deities were honored with joint worship."
From Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions, pp. 375-376.
6) What was "The Word"?
"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of
Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more
than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which he bestowed upon Mary,
and a spirit preceding from him so believe in Allah and his
messengers. Say not "Three," desist! It will be better for you, for
Allah is one God. Glory be to him. Far exalted is he above having a
son. To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough
is Allah as a disposer of affairs."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):171
In the Qur'an we are told that when God Almighty wills something he
merely says to it "Be" and it is.
"Verily! Our (Allah's) Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only
that We say unto it "Be!" - and it is"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Nahil(16):40 (please also read chapter 14)
This is the Islamic viewpoint of "The Word." "The Word" is literally
God's utterance "Be." This is held out by the Bible where thirteen
verses later in John 1:14 we read:
"And the Word was made flesh".
In the Qur'an, we read:
"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created
him from dust, then said to him: 'Be.' And he was."
The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):59.
Regarding what is meant by Allah by "a spirit preceding from him" I
shall simply let Allah Himself explain:
"And [remember] when Allah said to the angles: 'I shall create a human
(Adam) from sounding clay, from altered mud. So when I have fashioned
him and have breathed into him of my spirit, then fall down in
prostration before him'"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Hijr(15):29
For more on this topic, please read section 1.2.3.8
Let us once again update our table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.7 John 10:30
The third verse which Christians claim validates the doctrine of the
trinity is the verse of John 10:30
"I and my father are one."
This verse, however is quoted out of context. The complete passage,
starting with John 10:23, reads as follows:
"And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews
round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to
doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I
told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's
name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not
of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know
them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they
shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able
to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one."
John 10:23-30
In divinity? In a holy "Trinity"? No! They are one in PURPOSE. Just as
no one shall pluck them out of Jesus' hand, so too shall no one pluck
them out of God's hand.
Need more proof? Then read:
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe
on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the
world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou
gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are
one."
John 17:20-22
Is all of mankind also part of the "Trinity"?
Such terminology can be found in many other places, read for example:
"Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then
take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot?
God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is
one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined
unto the Lord is one spirit,"
1 Corinthians 6:15-17
And also
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in
you all."
Ephesians 4:6
And
"For as the (human) body is one, and hath many members, and all the
members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be
Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made
to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many."
1 Corinthians 12:12-14
Once we read the above verses and understand what the message was that
Paul was trying to get across, then we can begin to understand his
words in such places as
"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope
of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father
of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
Ephesians 4:4
"St. Paul" was speaking about Christian unity, not about a plurality
of gods merged into one body. As we shall soon see, he was completely
ignorant of where his teachings would later lead, and how decades
later, they would be the foundations which would spawn the "Trinity"
doctrine.
Once again, here is our updated table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28,
John.14:6,
John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.8 Genesis 1:26
In the Book of Genesis 1:26, we read:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
In this and other verses of the Bible, God refers to Himself as "us"
and "our," etc. Does not the use of the terms "us" and "our" prove
that the God which created all of creation is not a singular entity
but a Trinity?
For the answer to this question please refer to chapter 14 which
discusses the use of plural pronouns with respect to God in both the
Bible as well as the Qur'an.
And our table now looks like this:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28,
John.14:6,
John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.9 John 14:8-9
Well, what about the verse
"He that hath seen me hath seen the father."
Let us look at the context:
"Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"
John 14:8-9
Philip wanted to see God with his own eyes, but this is impossible
since no one can ever do ever do that. The Bible says:
"No man hath seen God at any time,"
John 1:18
"No man hath seen God at any time,"
1 John 4:12
So Jesus simply told him that his own actions and miracles should be a
sufficient proof of the existence of God without God having to
physically come down and let himself be seen every time someone is
doubtful. This is equivalent to for example
1. John 8:19: "Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus
answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye
should have known my Father also."
2. John 12:44 "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me,
believeth not on me, but on him that sent me."
3. John 15:23 "He that hateth me hateth my Father also."
4. Matthew 10:40-41 "He that receiveth you receiveth me (Jesus), and
he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a
prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and
he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall
receive a righteous man's reward."
If we want to insist that when Philip saw Jesus (pbuh), he had
actually physically seen God "the Father" because Jesus "is" the
father and both are one "Trinity," and Jesus is the "incarnation" of
God, then this will force us to conclude that John 1:18, 1 John
4:12, ..etc. are all lies.
Well, is Philip the only one who ever "saw the father"? Let us read:
"Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he
hath seen the Father."
John 6:46
Who is this who "is of God" and had seen the Father you ask? Let us
once again ask the Bible:
"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not,
because ye are not of God."
John 8:47.
And
"Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He
that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God"
3 John 1:11.
Have all people who have done good also physically seen God?
In "The New Catholic Encyclopedia" (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and
Imprimatur, indicating official approval) we get a glimpse of how the
concept of the Trinity was not introduced into Christianity until
close to four hundred years after Jesus (pbuh):
".......It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to
offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the
revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the
Mystery of the trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well
as other, present a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have
happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and
Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman
Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New
Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely
parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic
theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism,
one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last
quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be
called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God in three Persons'
became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought ... it
was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development" (emphasis
added).
"The New Catholic Encyclopedia" Volume XIV, p. 295.
They admit it!. Jesus' twelve apostles lived and died never having
heard of any "Trinity" !
Did Jesus leave his closest and dearest followers so completely and
utterly baffled and lost that they never even realized the "true"
nature of God? Did he leave them in such black darkness that neither
they nor their children, nor yet their children's children would ever
come to recognize the "true" nature of the One they are to worship? Do
we really want to allege that Jesus was so thoroughly incompetent in
the discharge of his duties that he left his followers in such utter
chaos that it would take them fully three centuries after his
departure to finally piece together the nature of the One whom they
are to worship? Why did Jesus never, even once, just say "God, the
Holy Ghost and I are three Persons in one Trinity. Worship all of us
as one"? If he had only chosen to make just one such explicit
statement to them he could have relieved Christianity of centuries of
bitter disputes, division, and animosity.
Top Harpur writes in his book "For Christ's Sake":
"What is most embarrassing for the church is the difficulty of proving
any of these statements of dogma from the new Testament documents. You
simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the
Bible. St. Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but
nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself anywhere
explicitly claim to be the second person in the Trinity, wholly equal
to his heavenly Father. As a pious Jew, he would have been shocked and
offended by such an Idea....(this is) in itself bad enough. But there
is worse to come. This research has lead me to believe that the great
majority of regular churchgoers are, for all practical purposes,
tritheists. That is, they profess to believe in one God, but in
reality they worship three.."
The Encyclopaedia Britannica states under the heading "Trinity":
"in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as
three persons in one Godhead Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit
doctrine appears in the New Testament,... The Council of Nicaea in 325
stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that
the Son is 'of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,' even
though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half
century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by
the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea,
Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers),
the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has
maintained ever since."
Once again, let us have a look at our table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28,
John.14:6,
John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.10 John 14:6
Some people read:
"I am the way, ...no one comes to the Father, but through me."
When reading this verse, for some reason some people see in it a
confirmation of the Trinity. Although I can not see how they can read
either an explicit or even an implicit reference to the Trinity in
this verse, still, due to it's popularity it deserves to be studied
There appear to be a sizable number of Christians who when reading
this verse interpret it to state that Jesus is God and that no one
shall enter into heaven except if they worship Jesus. For this reason
this verse should ideally be dealt with in section 1.2.3 (The 'Son of
God'), however, since it is brought up so often in discussions of the
Trinity it appears to be appropriate to discuss it here.
The popular perception that this verse claims that Jesus requires our
worship in order for us to receive salvation is not the intended
meaning of this verse. However, in order for us to recognize this fact
it is necessary to study it's context.
If we were to back up a little and read from the beginning of this
chapter, we would find that just before Jesus spoke these words, he
said;
"In my Father's house are many mansions (dwelling places); if it were
not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a mansion (a
dwelling place) for you."
John 14:2
The above statement is quite clear. It is in exact conformance to the
teachings of the Qur'an. In the Qur'an we are told how God sent
messengers to all tribes and nations. We are told that the basic
message which was given to each of these tribes was the same: "Worship
God alone and worship none else." Some of the secondary details of
this worship might differ from one tribe or nation to the next
according to God's infinite wisdom and his knowledge of those people.
It was made very clear to each prophet that he was not to preach to
anyone but his own people. It was further made clear to this
messenger's people that if they were to obey him that they would
receive the reward of God. God would not hold them accountable for
what any other tribe or nation did or did not do. This would continue
until God's last messenger, Muhammad (pbuh) would be sent to all
mankind as the seal of the prophets.
This is exactly what Jesus is saying here. He said that in God's
mansion there are "many" rooms. Jesus was sent to guide to only one of
them. The countless other rooms were reserved for other tribes and
nations if they would obey their messengers. However, Jesus was
telling his followers that they need not worry themselves about the
other rooms. Anyone from among his people who wished to enter into the
room which was reserved for them could only do so if they followed
Jesus and obeyed his command. So Jesus confirmed that he was going to
prepare "a" mansion and not "all" the mansions in "my Father's house".
Further, the verse clearly states that Jesus was the "WAY" to a
mansion. He did not say that he is the "DESTINATION" which would be
the case if he were God. What else would we expect a prophet of God to
say except "I am the 'way' to God's mercy"? That is his job. That is
what a prophet does. It is why God chose him in the first place; in
order to guide to the mercy of God. This is indeed confirmed in John
10:9 where Jesus tells us that he is "the door" to "the pasture." In
other words, he is the "prophet" who guides his people to
"heaven" (see also Jn. 12:44). Once again, this is the message of
Islam.
Finally, remember
"Not every one that says to me(Jesus); 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the
kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, who is in
heaven."
Matthew.7:21
Here, once again is our table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28,
John.14:6,
John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.11 John 20:28
"Then saith he (Jesus) to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold
my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and
be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto
him, My Lord and my God."
Once again, when I was first quoted this verse, I immediately thought
that I had at long last found my elusive goal. Finally, I had found a
verse that explicitly claims that Jesus "is" God. However, it was not
long after that, upon further research into Christian theological
literature, I once again would come to find that the true meaning of
this verse was quite different than what a casual glance might have me
believe.
This verse is at best an example of an "implicit" affirmation of a
"Duality." This is because this verse appears to imply that Thomas
thought that Jesus was God Almighty. The words are those of Thomas and
not Jesus. However, there are a number of problems with interpreting
this verse to mean that Jesus is God.
Firstly, the phrase "Thomas answered" is somewhat misleading since
nowhere before this verses was Thomas asked a question. Thomas' words
could more appropriately be referred to as an "outburst" or an
"exclamation." This is indeed why most translations of the Bible
(excluding the King James Version) follow this exclamation with an
"exclamation mark" as follows: "And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Lord and my God !"
Christian scholars such as Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-428), the
Bishop of Mopsuestia, interpreted this verse to not be directed at
Jesus but at God "the Father." Thus, it is similar in meaning to our
modern exclamations of surprise "My God!" or "My Lord!." In other
words, this was an outburst designed to display surprise and disbelief
rather than an affirmation that Jesus was in fact God "the Father."
Secondly, the word translated in this verse as "God" is indeed the
Greek "Ho theos" (The God), and not "theos" (divine). However, when
studying the history of this verse in the ancient Biblical manuscripts
from which our modern Bibles have been compiled we find an interesting
fact, specifically, that the ancient Biblical manuscripts themselves
are not in agreement as to the correct form of this word. For example,
the codex Bezae (or codex D) is a fifth century manuscript containing
Greek and Latin texts of the Gospels and Acts, which was discovered in
the 16th century by Theodore Beza in a monastery in Lyon. The
predecessor of the codex Bezae and other church manuscripts do not
contain the article "Ho" ("THE") in their text (The Orthodox
Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman, p. 266). What this means is
that this verse in it's original form, if it is to be understood to be
addressing Jesus (pbuh) himself, only addresses him as "divine" and
not as the "Almighty God." Thus, it is similar in meaning to the
meaning conveyed when prophet Moses is described as being a "god" in
Exodus 7:1 (or when all Jews are described as being "gods" in Psalms
82:6, or when the devil is described as god in 2 Corinthians 4:4),
effectively reducing the exclamation of Thomas, if it were indeed
directed to Jesus, to "My lord the divine!," or "my divine lord!"
For a Muslim the matter is simple. The Qur'an very explicitly states
that Jesus was not forsaken by God to the Jews to be crucified, rather
"it was made to appear so to them." So the claim that Jesus came to
Thomas and asked him to witness the imprint of the nail in his hand
and the spear in his side is, for a Muslim, clear evidence that this
whole episode was a fabrication and later insertion. However, since a
Muslim's claim in this regard would not be regarded as authoritative
unbiased proof in this matter, therefore, it is necessary to use a
little logic to arrive at the truth.
Since we now have on our hands a dispute between the ancient Biblical
manuscripts themselves as to what Thomas actually said, therefore, let
me pose this very simple request. Please get out a pencil and a piece
of paper, stop reading this book for the moment, and in your own
words, please write down in about twenty words, very concisely but as
directly as possible, what is the foremost obvious conclusion you are
able to draw from Thomas' outburst. Study your words carefully and
write them down as if your very life and the salvation of thousands of
generations depend on what you are about to say. Make it clear and to
the point. Have you finished?. Okay, let us continue.
Let us now compare what you have just written with what the actual
author of this Gospel had written when faced with the same
requirements I have just presented you with. If we were to continue
reading from this same Gospel of John, we will find that immediately
following this discourse between Jesus and Thomas depicted by the
author of "John," the same author of "John" goes on to write:
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his
disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written,
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and
that believing ye might have life through his name."
John 20:30-31
If the author of John had recognized Thomas' words to be a testimony
that "Jesus is God" and if the author interpreted Jesus' silence to be
his approval of this claimed testimony, then John would have written
"that ye might believe that Jesus is the Almighty God" and not "that
ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ..." (For an explanation of
the terms "son of God" and "Christ" please read sections 1.2.3.2, and
1.2.3.8 which are coming up soon).
To make this matter clearer let us first remember that Christian
scholars tell us that the disciples did not fully comprehend who Jesus
"was" until after the resurrection. They admit that the Trinity was
not "fully" incorporated into Christianity until three hundred years
after the departure of Jesus (see rest of chapter one). However, they
then point to this verse in order to exhibit to us how in the end the
"true" nature of Jesus was made clear to the apostles. Now, we need to
ask, what is the single most important piece of information we have
just learned from Thomas' outburst? What is the single most glaring,
obvious, and outstanding, piece of information we have learned from
this statement? Any random missionary would tell us that it is the
fact that "Jesus is God!" In other words, the disciples have just
spent many years with Jesus learning from him, following him, obeying
him, and preaching his message. Suddenly he is allegedly taken away,
crucified, buried, and then he is resurrected. Now Thomas sees him and
according to the testimony of "John," he realizes that Jesus is "God
the Father" who has come down to earth to walk among us. So what would
we logically expect to be the foremost topic of most urgent and
critical concern in the eyes of the author of "John"? Obviously, it
should be the instillation within us of the "fact" that "Jesus is the
'incarnation' of God Almighty!" Does this not stand to reason? Why
then does the author now casually disregard such an earth shattering
observation and choose to simply return to describing Jesus with the
benign terms of "son of God" and "Messiah/Christ"(see sections
1.2.3.2, and 1.2.3.8)? Did the author of this book not make the
connection which we have just made? Did the author of "John" have less
understanding of what he was writing than us? Think about it.
Furthermore, some Christian scholars believe that the whole episode of
"doubting Thomas" is a later "insertion." "The Five Gospels" mark this
passage as being a complete fabrication and not the word of Jesus
(pbuh).
There are a number of other verses which could be brought up in this
comparison, however, the ones just quoted are the strongest and most
often quoted verses. A number of other verses that are brought up in
such discussions shall be dealt with in chapter 1.2.3 since they are
more directly applicable to the concept of the divinity of Jesus or
the claim that he is the physical/begotten son of God than they are to
the discussion of the Trinity.
Finally, let us now have a final look at our table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28,
John.14:6,
John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
As we can see from the table, there is not a single explicit or
implicit statement in the whole Bible confirming the "Trinity." Indeed
this was the very reason why it was decided so many centuries ago to
insert the verse of 1 John 5:7 into the Bible. Because without this
fabricated verse there would be absolutely no earthly way to prove
that God is a Trinity. In such a case we would simply have to take the
Church's word for it. However, by the grace of God Almighty, this
fabrication was not exposed by Muslims, it was not exposed by a
liberal Christian, it was not even exposed by a conservative
Christian, rather it was exposed by thirty two conservative biblical
scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian
denominations. No matter what your church or denomination, chances are
that it was a member of the committee that compiled the RSV Bible and,
among other changes, threw out 1 John 5:7 as a complete fabrication.
Does it not seem a little strange that God did not choose to include
just one single explicit statement in the whole Bible where He said "I
am three gods in one."?
Does it not seem just a little strange that we have been reduced to
picking and choosing implicit references to a "Duality" and trying to
"piece together" the nature of God?
Why did God feel the need to repeatedly explicitly state throughout
the Bible that He is ONE, yet when it comes time for Him to explicitly
state that He is THREE suddenly it is left up to our intellect to
"observe" or "gather" that He "must" be a "Trinity."?
Why was this matter not resolved back at the time of prophets Noah or
Abraham or Moses (pbut)? Why do we not find a single Jew worshipping a
Trinity?
I know that there are still many unanswered questions, however, please
bear with me, the picture shall begin to become much clearer once we
get into sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 by the will of Allah.
1.2.2.12 A logical analysis
As we have seen at the very beginning of our analysis, Jesus (pbuh)
has commanded us to "love the Lord thy God ... with all thy mind,"
Mark 12:30. We were also taught that "For God is not [the author] of
confusion" 1 Corinthians 14:33.
So, if God's nature is not one of confusion, then it should not be
necessary to command us to simply "have faith" in the Trinity because
it is a "mystery." Is this not fair? Is this not what the Bible and
Jesus himself say? So let us use our minds and be inquisitive. Let us
ask questions so that we may indeed be able to truthfully claim that
we have loved God "with all our minds."
Now, most Christians today are taught that because of Adam, all of
humanity has inherited sin. This sin was so great that it could not be
forgiven by any normal means. This sin was so great that God could not
simply say "You are all forgiven." This sin was so great that even the
sacrifice of a sinless mortal would not do. This sin was so great that
it was necessary for God Almighty to offer up His only begotten son as
the only possible purifying sacrifice for the sins of humanity. The
only possible way for God to forgive humanity this tremendous sin was
to have his son delivered to his mortal enemies so that they might
beat him, spit on him, whip him, strip him, cut him, humiliate him,
hang him up on the cross, and finally kill him. In this manner, God
would finally be able to grant us the forgiveness He so wishes to
bestow upon us. (1 Corinthians 15:3 "Christ died for our sins", Romans
5:6 "Christ died for the ungodly" etc.)
However, when we look closely at this picture we find a number of
problems. For example, if Jesus (pbuh) is part of a divine Trinity
which makes up the essence of God Almighty, and if this God is ONE God
and not THREE gods, and if Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross, then what
happened to God Almighty?. Did the Trinity die also, or was a third of
the Trinity ripped away from the whole, then tortured, killed, and
sent to hell for three days, while the remaining two thirds (of God?)
remained in it's crippled form a safe distance away? Who was
overseeing the heavens and the earth while all of this was happening?
A crippled Trinity? No one? If I am made up of heart, mind, and soul,
and one of them dies; what happens to the rest of me? Are they ONE or
THREE? If God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three names for the same
being, (definition of the "Trinity" required by Isaiah 43:10-11 and
many other verses) and not three separate gods, then the "death of
Jesus" is just another way of saying "the death of God the 'Father',"
which is also another way of saying "the death of the Holy Ghost."
Some members of the clergy will object that it was not Jesus "per se"
who died, but rather it was only "his human form" that died. His
"godly" form was not affected. It is described as one describes
someone removing his coat. This leaves us with a dilemma, because it
leaves us with one of two cases:
1) Either Jesus (pbuh) "himself" did NOT die, but only shed his
earthly body (as it were), and in this case we must ask, where then is
the great sacrifice in this shedding of a useless shell? Did we not
just agree a few minutes ago that the sacrifice of a sinless mortal
was not sufficient in order to erase the sins of all of humanity? Did
we not just claim that it must be a sinless "GOD" that must die? How
then is Jesus' shedding of this useless mortal shell which is not his
actual essence an ultimate sacrifice in atonement for all of mankind's
sins? How is it any different than the sacrifice of any normal human
being? Did the death of Jesus' coat atone for the sins of all mankind?
Can Jesus not simply make one thousand more human "shells" for himself
to inhabit? Is his discarding of one of them an "ultimate sacrifice
for the sins of all humanity"?
2) Or, Jesus (pbuh) "himself" died, in which case, since he is claimed
to be part of the "Trinity", and the "Trinity" is claimed to be ONE
god, not three (required by Isaiah 43:10-11, Deut. 4:35, 4:39, 1 Kings
8:60, Isaiah 45:5 and many other verses), then God, Jesus, and the
Holy Ghost are all claimed to have died, since they are all "the same
essence." Further, if all three are indeed ONE God then the death of
this one God contradicts many verses such as:
"But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an
everlasting king."
Jeremiah 10:10
Also, if the giver of life is dead then who shall bring Him back to
life? The only way out of this dilemma is to accept the truth, that
Jesus (pbuh) was not God but only an elect messenger of God.
Remember when Jesus (pbuh) is alleged to have died?:
"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy
hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the
ghost"
Luke 23:46
When people die they go to their Lord to be judged. If Jesus (pbuh)
was, as claimed, a part of a Trinity and the Trinity is only ONE god
(as required by the above verses), then Jesus was with God in a
Trinity before his death. It was only after his death that he was
claimed to have left God, died, and gone down into hell for three
days. However, this verse tells us a completely different story. It
claims that Jesus' essence was somewhere other than already with God
while he was on earth (otherwise it would not have to go to Him) and
was now going to God. Also read John 17:11: "...I come to thee. Holy
Father." And John 17:13: "And now come I to thee"...etc.
Sadly enough, most Christians are taught to brush off these matters
with words like "It is incomprehensible, that is why it must be true,"
or "believe blindly or you will lose your soul."? Have we so soon
forgotten "For God is not of confusion" 1 Corinthians 14:33 ? Have we
so soon forgotten "thou shalt love the Lord thy God ... with all thy
mind," Mark 12:30?.
Many missionaries attempt to prove that God is "three" by drawing
analogies between God and His creation. They say: "There are three
members in a family, father, mother and children. There are three
states for water, ice, water and steam, etc. Don't you see? God is
three!"
Well, if this is the case then we need to notice that "Each person
gets only one life. There is only one sun. There is only one earth.
Each person only has one heart and one mind, etc."
Similarly, "We all have only two eyes. We all have only two ears. Days
are split into two parts, morning and night, etc."
As we can see, following such tactics is indeed a frivolous pursuit.
Such examples could be extended forever. We could say "There are four
seasons in every year. There are five fingers on each hand. The Jews
were only allowed by God to work for six days. There are seven days in
every week, ..." but you get the picture.
Now, God Almighty is claimed to have "begotten" Jesus (pbuh). He is
claimed to be the "father" of Jesus. Naturally a father is present
before he "begets" his son (no matter how you wish to define "beget").
Before Jesus (pbuh) was "begotten," was the "Trinity" a "Duality"? Was
God complete? Explain Isaiah 43:10-11. If Jesus (pbuh) was "begotten"
then he is not eternal, but the definition of the Trinity which was
first put together in 325 C.E. when the Trinity was first officially
defined requires the "co-eternity" of God and Jesus (pbuh) (see
below).
If Jesus is one face of a "Trinity" and the Trinity is one god not
many, then anyone who sees Jesus has seen God, however, John 1:18 says
"No man hath seen God at any time."
And we have just read in the Athanasian creed (Nicean creed) that
"God" is a "Trinity" made up of "the Father," the "Son," and the "Holy
Ghost." We also read therein that God is not three gods but one God.
If this is the case then anyone who has seen Jesus has seen "God." But
the Bible tells us that this is not the case.
Jesus (pbuh) claims to not even know when "that day" is
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father"
Mark 13:32.
Is he not part of God? Is the "Trinity" not ONE god? The fact that one
"personality" of God has knowledge not available to the other "two
thirds" is a clear indication that they are distinct and separate
beings, and not three faces of one being.
There are many such questions to be raised about this supposed Trinity
which defy common sense. When someone loves God "with all thy mind"
and they "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" are they not
presented with countless contradictions regarding the "Trinity"? I am
speaking about the logic of Jesus (pbuh) here and not blind faith.
Jesus is beseeching us to use our minds but we would rather follow
others who demand blind faith. Jesus (pbuh) tells us
"If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him,
and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
John 14:23.
Sadly, the same people who love him dearly have now been taught that
in order to love Jesus they must completely disregard everything he
ever taught his followers and must follow others who are better able
to explain his message than himself. In effect, his words have been
totally abandoned (see below).
"Say: 'O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds
[of what is proper], trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain
desires of people who went astray in times gone by, who misled many,
and strayed [themselves] from the straight path.'"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Maida(5):77
1.2.2.13 On "steam, water, and ice "
If I have three balls of clay and I press them together into one ball
then they become ONE but now it is impossible to retrieve the original
three exactly as they were originally.
If I have three bricks and I stack them above each other then I can
separate them, but I can not call the three bricks ONE brick.
By far, the most common analogy given for the "Trinity" by the church
is that of the three forms of water, specifically, ice, liquid, and
steam. They say, just as water is "one" but with three "states" or
three "forms," so too is God Almighty one but with three states.
On the face of it this appears to be quite a compelling argument. So
let us apply it to a few verses of the Bible in order to see whether
it holds up to scrutiny and is actually endorsed by the Bible. In
other words, it is necessary to see whether the Bible itself actually
confirms such a picture of God. Only then can we accept or reject this
analogy.
If I have a cup of water which can become steam, liquid, or ice, then
it is not possible for me to drink the "liquid" while the "ice" and
"steam" remain inside the glass. It is not possible for the "liquid"
to beseech the ice to save it from being drunk while the ice stayed a
safe distance away and was not itself drunk. This is simple logic. In
a similar manner, if God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all merely
three "personalities" or three "states" for one being, namely God
Almighty, then it is not possible for one "personality" of God to DIE
while the other two remained a safe distance away unharmed by death
(Mark 15:37, John 19:33, Romans 5:6,...etc.).
Some will then solve this dilemma, as seen in the previous section, by
claiming that Jesus (pbuh) did not actually "die," rather, he simply
shed his earthly "skin." His actual essence was not killed. In this
case it is necessary to ask: where then is the great sacrifice? If one
of us has five thousand coats, and he takes one off and throws it in
the fire then puts on a different one and says: "I did this as an
ultimate sacrifice for you," is this truly an ultimate sacrifice if he
can simply create one thousand more earthly "skins" to inhabit in
place of the one he shed? Does his taking off of his coat and putting
on a new one after three days "atone" for the sins of all of the
"inherently wicked and sinful mankind" from the beginning of time?
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God ... with all thy mind ... this
is the first commandment" Mark 12:30
There are many other situations in the Bible that contradict this
analogy and the theory of "three" gods. For example:
Would it be logical to picture the "ice" form of a bucket of water
praying to the "steam" form of itself (e.g. Luke 6:12). Further, did
water start out as liquid and then decide to "beget" for itself
another personality as "ice" and then add on a third personality as
"steam"? Did God start out with one "personality" and then one day
"beget" for Himself multiple personalities to keep Him company?. Does
He usually speak to His other personalities and beseech them for
salvation? (Matthew 27:46) Did He sacrifice one of His personalities
to "save" mankind? Do some of His personalities have knowledge not
available to others (Mark 13:32)? Are some of His "personalities" more
powerful than others (John 14:28)? Are some of his personalities
submissive to others (Luke 22:41-44)? Is this our mental picture of
God? How will we answer Him on the day of judgment when He asks us
about these claims we have made against Him?
In order to demonstrate the absurdity of this "ice, water, and steam"
theory, let us use the following analogy:
Military/Student Joe:
Assume that "Joe" is a university student who is also serving in the
army. In such a case we might be able to say that there are two
"personalities" to Joe, a "student" personality and a "military"
personality. Does this mean that it is logical to imagine "student
Joe" humbling himself before "military Joe" and appealing to him to
have mercy upon him while "military Joe" sat some distance away
accepting "student Joe's" pleas and considering whether to grant them
or not (Matthew 26:39)?
Further, if some killers attacked "student Joe" while he was in the
university, would it be logical for us to claim that "student Joe" ran
for the telephone and pleaded with "military Joe" to quickly come and
save him? Would it be logical to say that "military Joe" did not
answer this plea and "student Joe" was murdered in the university
while "military Joe" remained safe and unharmed in the military base?
Continuing, according to the Bible, God and Jesus are claimed to not
be equal in knowledge nor in power (Mark 13:32, John 14:28, etc.). So
is it then logical in the above analogy to claim that "military Joe"
is stronger than "student Joe" or that "student Joe" is smarter than
"military Joe"?
It is always important when we are presented with a theory or
"explanation" regarding the claimed "Trinity" to carefully analyze it
and apply it to the Bible and test it thoroughly before accepting it.
It is not at all acceptable to say I can not explain it nor prove it,
neither does the Bible explicitly command me to have blind faith in
this matter, yet since the church told me to do so, therefore, I shall
do so. Indeed, Jesus (pbuh) wanted his followers to think, analyze,
study, ask questions, and interrogate. This is his very FIRST
commandment (Mark 12:30). Indeed, the Bible teaches us "For God is not
[the author] of confusion" 1 Corinthians 14:33.
Let us conclude this section with a very eloquent example which was
once presented by the British scholar Richard Porson. One day, Porson
was discussing the "Trinity" with a Trinitarian friend when a buggy
containing three men passed by. "There," Porson's friend exclaimed "is
an illustration of the Trinity." Porson replied "No, you must show me
one man in three buggies, if you can."
For the historical details of how such a doctrine was developed in the
first place, please read section 1.2.5 which is coming up soon. But
first:
1.2.3: The "son of God
"And unto Him belongs whosoever is in the heavens and the earth and
those who dwell in His presence do not scorn to worship Him nor do
they weary. They glorify Him night and day; They flag not. Or have
they chosen gods from the earth who raise the dead If there were
therein gods besides Allah then verily both (the heavens and the
earth) would have gone to ruin. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the
Throne from all they ascribe (unto Him). He is not questioned as to
that which He does, but they will be questioned. Or have they chosen
other gods besides Him, say: Bring your proof (of their godhead), this
is the reminder of those with me and those before me, but most of them
know not the truth so they are averse (to it). And we sent no
messenger before you but we inspired him (saying): There is no god
save Me (Allah) so worship Me. And they say: The Compassionate has
taken unto himself a son. Nay! but (they) are but honored servants.
They speak not until He has spoken and they obey His command. He knows
what is before them and what is behind them and they cannot intercede
except for those whom He accepts and they quake for awe of Him. And
whosoever among them says: I am a god other than Allah, the same shall
We reward with Hell. Thus do We reward the wrong doers."
The Qur'an, Al-Anbia(21):19-29
"And the angles said 'O Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word
from Him, his name is Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, High honored in this
world and the next, of those near stationed to Allah."
The noble Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):40.
We as Muslims do not differ with Christians in the fact that Jesus
(pbuh) was indeed born miraculously without a human father. Muslims
only differ with Christians in the Christian's claim that Jesus (pbuh)
must have a father. Trinitarians believe that if he has no human
father then his father must be God. Muslims believe that he had no
father whatsoever, and this was the essence of his miraculous birth.
"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam, he created
him from dust, then said to him: 'Be' and he was"
The noble Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):59.
"They say: Allah has taken a son. Glorified be He! He has no needs!
His is all that is in the heavens and that is in the earth. You have
no warrant for this, do you say regarding Allah that which you know
not?"
The noble Qur'an, Yunus(10):68
"The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger, messengers (the like
of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly
woman. They both used to eat (earthly) food. See how we make the signs
clear for them, then see how they are deluded!"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah (5):75.
"And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
John 17:3.
Notice the above words of the Bible: "YOU the ONLY true God." Most
Christians always manage to see a hidden abstract meaning for the
verses of the Bible. Even when they read the above verse they always
manage to understand something totally different than that which they
are reading. They always interpret the word "you" to be "we," and
thus, understand the above verse to say "WE the only true god." Jesus
(pbuh) is obviously talking to a distinctly different entity than
himself and telling that entity that He ALONE is the only true God. Is
Jesus (pbuh) incapable of saying "I the only true God" or "We the only
true God" if that is what he meant? Can we see the difference?
Mr. Tom Harpur says in the preface to his book:
"The most significant development since 1986 in this regard has been
the discovery of the title "Son of God" in one of the Qumran papyri
(Dead Sea Scrolls) used in relation to a person other than
Jesus.....this simply reinforces the argument made there that to be
called the Son of God in a Jewish setting in the first century is not
by any means the same as being identical with God Himself."
For Christ's Sake, pp. xii.
(please read chapter 7 for more on the Dead Sea Scrolls)
With regard to your second comment, Mr. J, I am not "implying"
anything. The Qur'an clearly states in no uncertain terms that God
"created" Jesus. Let us quote from the unbiased Webster's dictionary
as to what is "implied" by the word "begotten": "To procreate as the
father, sire, to produce as an effect or an outgrowth." Muslims feel
such claims with regard to God Almighty are an abomination.
1.2.3.1 Anglican bishops declare that Jesus is not God
Muslims are not the only ones who believe that Jesus (pbuh) is mortal
and not a god. The Jews also believe this, in addition to the very
first groups of Christianity such as the Ebonites, the Cerinthians,
the Basilidians, the Capocratians, and the Hypisistarians. The Arians,
Paulicians and Goths also accepted Jesus (pbuh) as a prophet of God.
Even in the modern age there are churches in Asia, in Africa, the
Unitarian church, the Jehovah's witnesses, and even the majority of
today's Anglican Bishops do not worship Jesus (pbuh) as God.
In the British newspaper the "Daily News" 25/6/84 under the heading
"Shock survey of Anglican Bishops" We read
"More than half of England's Anglican Bishops say that Christians are
not obliged to believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a
survey published today. The pole of 31 of England's 39 bishops shows
that many of them think that Christ's miracles, the virgin birth and
the resurrection might not have happened exactly as described in the
Bible. Only 11 of the bishops insisted that Christians must regard
Christ as both God and man, while 19 said it was sufficient to regard
Jesus as 'God's supreme agent'"
But what is a messenger of God? Is he not "God's supreme agent" ?.
This is indeed what God Himself has already told us in the noble
Qur'an 1400 years ago, and exactly what Jesus (pbuh) himself testified
to in the Bible:
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
John 17:3
Astounding, isn't it? With every passing day, the most learned among
the Christian community are slowly recognizing the truth and drawing
closer and closer to Islam. These are not Muslims who issued this
statement. These are not "liberal" Christians. These are the most
learned and most highly esteemed men of the Anglican Church. These men
have dedicated their whole lives to the study of the religion of
Jesus, and their study has driven them to the truth which God had
already revealed to them in the Qur'an 1400 years ago: That Jesus was
not God. That God is not a Trinity. And that the stories of the
ministry of Jesus in the Bible have been extensively tampered with by
the hands of mankind.
"And when Allah said: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto mankind:
Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he said: Be You
glorified. It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I
used to say it, then You knew it. You know what is in my [innermost]
self but I know not what is in Yours. Truly! You, only You are the
Knower of things hidden. I spoke unto them only that which You
commanded me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I
was a witness over them while I dwelt among them, and when You took me
You were the Watcher over them, and You are Witness over all things."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):116-118
The Church, as Heinz Zahrnt put it "put words into the mouth of Jesus
which he never spoke and attributed actions to him which he never
performed." One of those who has shown that most of what the church
says about Jesus is baseless is Rudolph Augustein in his book "Jesus
the Son of Man." Another very comprehensive study of this matter can
be found in the book "The Myth of God Incarnate" which was written by
seven theologian scholars in England in 1977 and edited by John Hick.
Their conclusion in this matter is that Jesus was "a man approved by
God, for a special role within the divine purpose, and..... the later
conception of him as God incarnate ... is a mythological or poetic way
of expressing his significance for us." See also John Mackinnon
Robertson's "Christianity and Mythology" T.W Doane's "The Bible Myths
and their Parallels in Other Religions" (A good summary of these
studies is available in M.F. Ansarei, "Islam and Christianity in the
Modern World").
A University of Richmond professor, Dr. Robert Alley, after
considerable research into newly found ancient documents concludes
that
"....The (Biblical) passages where Jesus talks about the Son of God
are later additions.... what the church said about him. Such a claim
of deity for himself would not have been consistent with his entire
lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the first three decades after
Jesus' death Christianity continued as a sect within Judaism. The
first three decades of the existence of the church were within the
synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they (the followers)
had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus."
Is there any confirmation of this in the Bible, yes! If we were to
read the Bible we would find that long after the departure of Jesus,
his faithful followers continued to "keep up their daily attendance at
the Temple" (Acts 2:46) It would be beyond belief to imagine that had
Jesus indeed preached to his apostles that he was God, and if Jesus
had indeed commanded them to forsake the commandments, that they would
then disregard all of this and continue to worship in a Jewish
synagogue on a daily basis, let alone the great Temple itself. It is
further beyond belief that the Jews of the Temple would stand idly by
and allow them to do this if they were preaching the total
cancellation of the law of Moses and that Jesus was God.
Can any Trinitarian Christian, even in their wildest fantasies,
imagine that the Jews in an orthodox Jewish synagogue would stand idly
by while he took out his cross and prayed to Jesus in the midst of
their synagogue and was publicly calling others to worship Jesus and
forsake the commandments? How much more preposterous to imagine that
they would have nothing to say to someone who did that in their most
sacred of all synagogues, the Temple, on a daily basis yet. This is
further evidence in support of the Qur'an, that Jesus only called his
followers to a continuation of the religion of Moses and not by any
means to the total cancellation and destruction of that law.
In the previous section, we read the following verses of the Bible:
1. "Know therefore this day, and consider [it] in thine heart, that
the LORD he [is] God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath:
[there is] none else." Deuteronomy 4:39.
2. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3
3. "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is]
Jealous, [is] a jealous God:" Exodus 34:14
4. "Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have
chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am]
he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after
me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no savior."
Isaiah 43:10-11.
5. "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD
of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there
is] no God." Isaiah 44:6
6. "That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none
else." Isaiah 45:6
7. "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that
formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it
not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there
is] none else." Isaiah 45:18.
8. "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I
[am] God, and [there is] none else." Isaiah 45:22
Now we should begin to ask ourselves: If there was no god before or
after God Almighty, then how was Jesus (pbuh) "begotten" as a god? The
answer is: he was not. He was a mortal man, not a god. We even have
the testimony of the majority of today's Anglican Bishops in defense
of this basic truth. If we want the testimony of a trustworthy witness
then how much more trustworthy a witness shall we ever find than the
majority of the most learned and respected conservative Christians of
the Anglican Church?
The Bible only preaches that Jesus is God and that God is a Trinity to
those who do not know it's innermost details and the truth of the
history of the Church as these men have come to know it. But let us
move on in our study of the Biblical verses so that we can see only a
small sampling of the evidence that has made the truth clear to these
men.
1.2.3.2 How many "Sons" does God have?
Many people tell us "but the Bible clearly says that Jesus is the Son
of God. How can you say that Jesus is not God's only begotten son when
Jesus says it so clearly in black and white in the Bible?" Well, first
of all, as seen in the previous section, we first need to know the
language of his people, the language of the Jews to whom he was
speaking. Let us see how they understood this proclamation.
Let us begin by asking: How many sons does the Bible tell us that God
Almighty has?
1. Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my
firstborn" Exodus 4:22.
1. Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I
will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his
father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14.
1. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and
Ephraim is my firstborn." Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn?
Israel or Ephraim?).
1. Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God." Luke
3:38.
1. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the
children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are
led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But
as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of
God, [even] to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12. "That ye may
be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the
midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights
in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the
Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of
God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning
stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job
38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the
sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6.
"when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4.
"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair"
Genesis 6:2
As we can see, the use of the term "son of God" when describing normal
human beings was not at all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people.
Well then, was Jesus the only begotten son of God? Read Psalms 2:7
"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David,
King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.".
Indeed, the Jews are even referred to as much more than this in the
Bible, and this is indeed the very trait which Jesus (pbuh) held
against them. When the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus (pbuh) he
defended himself with the following words
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, 'I said, Ye are
gods?' If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the
scripture cannot be broken..."
John 10:34:
(he was referring to Psalms 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of
you are children of the most High..") As we can see from these and
many other verses like them, "son of God" in the language of the Jews
was a very innocent term used to describe a loyal servant of God.
Whether the translators and editors chose to write it as "Son of
God" (with a capital S) in reference to Jesus and "son of God" (with a
small S) in reference to everyone else does not diminish the fact that
in the original language, both cases are exactly the same. Are we
beginning to see what drove the most learned men of the Anglican
Church to recognize the truth? But let us move on.
Grolier's encyclopedia, under the heading "Jesus Christ," says:
"During his earthly life Jesus was addressed as rabbi and was regarded
as a prophet. Some of his words, too, place him in the category of
sage. A title of respect for a rabbi would be "my Lord." Already
before Easter his followers, impressed by his authority, would mean
something more than usual when they addressed him as "my Lord.".... it
is unlikely that the title "Son of David" was ascribed to him or
accepted by him during his earthly ministry. "Son of God," in former
times a title of the Hebrew kings (Psalms 2:7), was first adopted in
the post-Easter church as an equivalent of Messiah and had no
metaphysical connotations (Romans 1:4). Jesus was conscious of a
unique filial relationship with God, but it is uncertain whether the
Father/Son language (Mark 18:32; Matt. 11:25-27 par.; John passim)
goes back to Jesus himself" .
There seems to be only two places in the Bible where Jesus (pbuh)
refers to himself as "son of God." They are in John chapters 5 and 11.
Hastings in "The dictionary of the Bible" says: "Whether Jesus used it
of himself is doubtful." Regardless, we have already seen what is
meant by this innocent title. However, Jesus is referred to as the
"son of Man" (literally: "Human being") 81 times in the books of the
Bible. In the Gospel of Barnabas, we are told that Jesus (pbuh) knew
that mankind would make him a god after his departure and severely
cautioned his followers from having anything to do with such people.
Jesus was not the son of a human man (according to both the Bible and
the Qur'an). However, we find him constantly saying "I am the son of
man." Why?. It was because in the language of the Jews, that is how
you say "I am a human being."
What was he trying to tell us by constantly repeating and emphasizing
to us throughout the New Testament "I am a human being," "I am a human
being," "I am a human being"?. What had he foreseen? Think about it!.
Do Christians emphasize this aspect of Jesus? The New Testament Greek
word translated as "son" are "pias" and "paida" which mean "servant,"
or "son in the sense of servant." These are translated to "son" in
reference to Jesus and "servant" in reference to all others in some
translations of the Bible (see below). As we are beginning to see, one
of the most fundamental reasons why Jesus (pbuh) is considered God is
due to extensive mistranslation. We shall see more and more examples
of this throughout this book.
Islam teaches that Jesus (pbuh) was a human being, not a god. Jesus
(pbuh) continually emphasized this to his followers throughout his
mission. The Gospel of Barnabas also affirms this fact. Once again,
Grolier's encyclopedia says:
"...Most problematical of all is the title "Son of Man." This is the
only title used repeatedly by Jesus as a self-designation, and there
is no clear evidence that it was used as a title of majesty by the
post-Easter church. Hence it is held by many to be authentic, since it
passes the criterion of dissimilarity."
1.2.3.3 Because God was his "Father"?
Is Jesus (pbuh) a divine son of God because he called God "Father"?
Well, how do all Christians refer to Him? What does Jesus himself have
to tell us in this regard? Let us read
"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven..."
Matthew 5:45
and "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven
is perfect."
Matthew 5:48:
...etc.
There are countless verses in the Bible to this effect. To understand
what is meant by the reference to "Father" we need only read John
8:42:
"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for
I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he
sent me."
So the love of God and His prophets is what makes God someone's
"father." Similarly,
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
do."
John 8:44
Obviously neither the Devil nor God is the physical father of any of
them. The term "Father" in that day and age was used by the Jews in
the same sense that Christians use the word "father" today to address
a priest. It was not meant to be taken literally. Otherwise, the Bible
would bear witness that every believer in Jesus (pbuh) is also the
"physical" son of God.
Further, please note that Joseph is called a "father" to Pharaoh in
Genesis 45:8, and Job is called the "father" of the poor in Job 29:16.
Once we read all of this we begin to understand how the Jews used to
understand the reference to God Almighty as "Father."
1.2.3.4 Because he performed miracles?
Well then, is Jesus the son of God because he raised the dead? If so,
then what about Ezekiel who is said to have raised many more dead
bodies than Jesus ever did. Ezekiel is said to have raised a whole
city from the dead (Ezekiel 37:1-9)
If we are looking for Godly powers and miracles as proof of godliness
then what about Joshua who is said to have stopped the sun and moon
for one whole day: (Joshua 10:12-13). Can anyone but God Almighty do
this?
Elisha is said to have raised the dead, resurrected himself, healed a
leper, fed a hundred people with twenty barley loaves and a few ears
of corn, and healed a blind man: (2 Kings 4:35, 13:21, 5:14, 4:44, and
6:11.)
Elijah is said to have raised the dead, and made a bowl of flour and a
jar of oil inexhaustible for many days (1 Kings 17:22 and 14.)
To say nothing of Moses (pbuh) and his countless miracles. Of his
parting of the sea, of his changing of a stick into a serpent, of his
changing of water into blood, ..etc.
And so forth......
Even Jesus (pbuh) himself tells us that miracles by themselves do not
prove anything:
"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall
shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they
shall deceive the very elect"
Matthew 24:24
So even false Christs can supply great wonders and miracles of such
magnitude that even the most knowledgeable among men shall be
deceived.
Jesus (pbuh) had a beginning (the begetting) and an end ("and he gave
up the ghost") Melchizedec, however, is said to have had no beginning
of days nor end of life but was "made like unto the Son of God" !.
"For this Melchizedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who
met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed
him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by
interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of
Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother,
without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;
but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now
consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch
Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils."
Hebrews 7:1-4
Solomon is said to have been with God at the beginning of time before
all of creation, Proverbs 8:22-31.
Well then, is Jesus (pbuh) god because he performed his miracles under
his own power while others needed God to perform them for them? Let us
then read:
1. Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All
power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."
2. Luke 11:20: "But if I with the finger of God cast out devils."
3. Matthew 12:28 "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God."
4. John 5:30: "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge:
and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the
will of the Father which hath sent me."
5. John 10:25: "the works that I do in my Father's name."
6. John 8:28-29 "...I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath
taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the
Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that
please him."
7. Acts 2:22 "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a
man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which
God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know"
So we see that even the apostle of Jesus (pbuh), Peter "the Rock,"*
bore witness many years after the departure of Jesus not that Jesus
was "God, the Son of God, who did miracles through his Omnipotence,"
rather, he openly bore witness before all those present that Jesus was
"a man." He then went on to make sure that the masses would not be
mislead by Jesus' miracles into thinking that he was more than a man
by emphasizing that it was not Jesus who did the miracles, rather,
just as was the case with countless other prophets before him, it was
God Himself who did these miracles and that God's prophets are simply
the tools through which He performed His miracles. In other words, the
point that Peter was trying to drive home to these people was for them
to remember that just as Moses' parting of the seas did not make him
God or the son of God, and just as Elisha's raising of the dead did
not make him God or the son of God, so too was the case with Jesus.
What was the goal behind the performance of these miracles? Let us
read John 11:42 where we find that just before Jesus raised Lazarus
from the dead, he made a point of making sure that the crowd would not
misunderstand what he was about to do or why he did it, so he publicly
stated before God while they were listening that, just as was the case
with all previous prophets, the reason why he was given these miracles
was in order to prove that God had sent Him and he was a true
prophet:
"And I knew that Thou hearest me always; but because of the people
standing around I said it, that they may believe that Thou didst send
Me.".
John 11:42
1.2.3.5 Because he was filled with the Holy Ghost?
Well then was Jesus (pbuh) the son of God because he was filled with
the Holy Ghost? Let us read
1. Luke 1:67 "Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost."
2. Luke 1:41 "Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost."
3. Acts 4:8 "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost said."
4. Acts 13:9 "Then Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on
him.."
5. Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began
to speak."
Is Jesus(pbuh) a god because he was filled with the Holy Spirit from
his mother's womb? If this is the case then John the Baptist should be
a god also, as claimed in Luke 1:13-15.
1.2.3.6 Because he was the "Image of God"?
Some will now say: But in the Bible we read:
"....Christ, who is the image of God."
2 Corinthians 4:4
Surely this makes Jesus God. Well then, we should also read
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
him; male and female created he them."
Genesis 1:27
1.2.3.7 Because he was "from above"?
In John 8:23 we read
"And he (Jesus) said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above:
ye are of this world; I am not of this world."
Does this make Jesus (pbuh) a god ? No! Why not read
"I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because
they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world"
John 17:14
and "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."
John 17:16
There are many more similar examples.
1.2.3.8 Because he was the "Messiah/Christ" and the "Word"?
Many people believe "Messiah" to be a mystical Biblical term which had
been reserved by God from the beginning of time as a direct equivalent
of "only begotten Son." For this reason, when they see that Jesus is
referred to in the Bible as "The Messiah" they immediately translate
this to mean "The Son of God." In order to clear up this
misconception, let us first define the true meaning of the word
Messiah and then show it's exact usage in the Bible.
The word "Messiah" is the English version of the Hebrew word mashiyach
{maw-shee'-akh}. The literal meaning of this word in the Hebrew
language is "to anoint." In our present day, it is customary for those
who are appointed to high office (ie. the President of the US, Supreme
Court justices, etc.) to attend a solemn ritual wherein that person is
consecrated into office. During this ritual, certain rights of passage
or ascension must be performed, such as repeating a solemn oath and so
forth. Once such rituals have been successfully completed, only then
is that person considered to have officially received the rights and
obligations of this office.
In a similar fashion, in ancient times it was a common practice among
the Jews to "anoint" those who were appointed positions of high
authority. If we were to read the Bible we would find that every
priest and king of ancient Israel was "anointed" by their people as a
sign of official consecration to office. Further, we find that it was
not at all uncommon for inanimate objects and even pagans to be
"anointed." For example:
Solomon:
1 Kings 1:39 "And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the
tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all
the people said, God save king Solomon."
David:
1 Samuel 16:13 "Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in
the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David
from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah."
Jewish priests:
Leviticus 4:3 "If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the
sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath
sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin
offering."
Cyrus the pagan:
Isaiah 45:1 "Thus saith the LORD to his Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right
hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the
loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates
shall not be shut;"
A pillar:
Genesis 31:13 "I [am] the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the
pillar, [and] where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee
out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred."
The tabernacle:
Leviticus 8:10 "And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the
tabernacle and all that [was] therein, and sanctified them."
A cherub:
Ezekiel 28:14 "Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I
have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast
walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire."
Sick people:
Mark 6:13 "And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many
that were sick, and healed [them]."
Jesus anoints a blind man
John 9:6 "When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made
clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with
the clay,"
When this word was translated into ancient Greek, the words used were
"Messias" {mes-see'-as} and "Christos" {khris-tos'} (see John 1:41,
4:25). This is where we get the word "Christ" from, it was originally
derived from the Greek word for "anoint." Jesus was indeed
"christened," or "anointed," or "baptized," by John the Baptist before
the beginning of his ministry as seen for example in Matthew 3:16
among many other verses.
This is not to say that just because the word "Messiah" was applied to
others that it was not a specific designation for Jesus. It only goes
to show that this title does not imply a position as "Son of God."
For example, all of the prophets of God are "friends of God," however,
only prophet Abraham received this title as an official designation
for himself (James 2:23). In a similar manner, all of the prophets of
God in ancient Israel were all "anointed" prophets, however, as an
official designation, this title was reserved exclusively for Jesus.
This is indeed confirmed in the noble Qur'an:
"And the angles said 'O Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word
from Him, his name is Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, High honored in this
world and the next, of those near stationed to Allah."
The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):40
In fact, prophet Abraham is also fondly referred to by Muslims as the
"Khaleel-ullah" ("Friend of God"), and prophet Moses is referred to as
"Kaleem-ullah" ("The one spoken to by God"). However, just because
prophet Abraham is the "friend of God," this does not imply that all
other prophets (Noah, Moses, etc.) are all "enemies of God."
Similarly, just because Jesus (pbuh) is a "word" from God and a
"spirit" from Him does not imply that that he is "part of" God, or
that this designation is exclusive to him. For example, in the Qur'an
we read:
"So when I (God) have fashioned him (Adam) and breathed into him of My
spirit, fall you (Angels, and those in attendance) down in prostration
before him."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Hijr(15):29
"Verily! Our (Allah's) Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only
that We say unto it "Be!" - and it is"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Nahil(16):40 (please also read chapter 14)
To make such terminology clearer, let us take the example of the term
"house of God," or "My house" as seen in the Bible and the Qur'an in 1
Chronicles 9:11, and Al-Bakarah(2):125. If God is not confined to a
specific house or location (both Muslims and Christians agree to
this), then what is meant by the words "house of God"? Every house on
earth belongs to God, however, we do not call bars or brothels "houses
of God" but we do call houses of worship "houses of God." The true
meaning is that God is showing favor upon this house by associating it
with His name. God bestows such titles upon those whom He wishes to
bestow His favor upon from among His creation by virtue of the piety
and worship which is displayed to God in association with this
creation. It was the selfless dedication and piety of Jesus (pbuh)
towards his Creator which was rewarded by God by associating Jesus'
spirit with His name.
In a similar manner, the reference to Jesus being a "word" from God
does not mean that Jesus is "part of" God. For example, in many places
in the Bible God refers tp His "word." We can see this for example:
"Aaron shall be gathered unto his people: for he shall not enter into
the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because ye
rebelled against my word at the water of Meribah."
Numbers 20:24
Does "my word" here mean "Jesus"? There are numerous other examples.
1.2.3.9 Because he was called "Lord"?
Was Jesus God because people addressed him as "my lord." Not according
to the Bible. In the Bible we find that this was a common practice
with many others besides Jesus. For example:
Prophet Abraham:
"Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old
shall I have pleasure, my lord (Abraham) being old also?"
Genesis 18:12
Esau:
"And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau;
Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed
there until now:"
Genesis 32:4
Joseph:
"And we said unto my lord, We have a father, an old man, and a child
of his old age, a little one; and his brother is dead, and he alone is
left of his mother, and his father loveth him."
Genesis 44:20
David:
"And fell at his feet, and said, Upon me, my lord, [upon] me [let
this] iniquity [be]: and let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in
thine audience, and hear the words of thine handmaid."
1 Samuel 25:24
...etc.
1.2.3.10 Because God "gave His only begotten Son.."?
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life."
John 3:16
The above is the King James "translation" of John 3:16. If we were to
open up the Revised Standard Version of the Bible on this exact same
verse we would find it now translated as
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son, ...."
What is going on here? The RSV is the work of thirty two Biblical
Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating
Christian denominations. They produced the RSV in an effort to correct
the "many" and "serious" errors they had found in the King James
Bible. So why have they scrapped the word "begotten" from this
cornerstone of Christian preaching? The reason is because they have
decided to be honest with us when translating this verse.
The Greek term for "begotten" in ancient Greek is "gennao" {ghen-nah'-
o} as found for example in Matthew 1:2. In the verses under
consideration, however, the word used was not "gennao" but
"monogenes" {mon-og-en-ace'}.
"Monogenes" is a Greek word which conveys the meaning "unique" and not
"begotten." Thus, the true translation of this verse is "His unique
son."
Some of the more honest translations of the Bibles, such as the New
Testament by Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith (published in 1923) have
indeed given the same translation as that of the RSV. However, such
"tell it as it is" Bibles were not generally met with a lot of
enthusiasm since they forced the reader to face the fact that much of
what the translators of the KJV have "translated" for them was not in
fact part of the Bible.
We have already seen in previous sections that the Bible bears witness
that God has "sons" by the tons. So what does the Bible mean by "only
son" or "unique son" when referring to Jesus? It means what the Bible
has told us and the Qur'an has confirmed for us, namely, that Jesus
was "unique" in that he was born of a human mother without a father.
God merely said to him "Be!" and he was.
1.2.3.11 What about "Unto us a child is born"?
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace."
Isaiah 9:6
When someone reads this verse of Isaiah they immediately see a clear
prophesy of God coming to earth in the form on a human child. Is this
not what the verse says? Does it not say that Jesus shall be the
"incarnation" of God on earth? Actually, it does not. Let us study it
together.
Firstly, it is important when applying a prophesy to someone to not
selectively pick and choose catch phrases from the prophesy and
disregard the rest. In this prophesy we find that the very first
stipulation presented for this person is that he shall carry the
government upon his shoulders.* However, as is popular knowledge,
Jesus (pbuh) never in his whole lifetime ever formed a government nor
became a head of state. In fact we find him saying in the Bible quite
explicitly:
1. John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my
kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I
should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from
hence."
2. Matthew 22:21 "Then saith he (Jesus) unto them, Render therefore
unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things
that are God's."
So according to the Bible, Jesus never tried to establish a government
nor to challenge the authority of the pagan emperor Caesar over
himself and his followers. Now, if someone were to go the extra mile
and to make the case that Jesus commands a "spiritual" government in
the hereafter, then we need to know whether the hereafter shall be a
place of governments, kings, laws and regulations?
Secondly, when we study the words "mighty God" carefully, we notice an
interesting fact. For some reason, the words used are not "Almighty
God" but rather "mighty God." Naturally, this makes one curious as to
what the original Hebrew text actually says. So we decide to study it.
The word for "Almighty" as applied exclusively to God in the OT is the
Hebrew word "Shadday" {shad-dah'-ee}. However, this is not the word
used in this verse. The actual word used in this verse is the Hebrew
word "Gibbowr" meaning "mighty" and not "The Almighty." Now, although
to us such a difference might seem subtle and insignificant, still, to
the Jews, the difference was quite pronounced. Let me elaborate.
In the famous Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary by James Strong the word
"gibbowr" or short "gibbowr" {ghib-bore'}, is translated as; warrior,
tyrant:-champion, chief, excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong
(man), valiant man. On the other hand the word "Shadday" {shad-dah'-
ee}, is translated as, the Almighty:-Almighty.
The word translated as "God" here is the Hebrew word "El" {ale} which
in addition to it's use to refer to God Almighty in the Bible is also
used to refer to mighty men, to demons, to angels, and to idols. As we
have already seen in the previous section, it was a common practice in
the Bible to use the word "god" to convey an air of authority or
power. Some of the examples presented were:
"I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of
the most High"
Psalms 82:6
and "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to
Pharaoh"
Exodus 7:1
as well as "the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds
of them which believe not."
2 Corinthians 4:4
When reading such verses we begin to understand the reason why Isaiah
9:6 refers to a "mighty god" and not an "Almighty God." If the author
did indeed mean to convey that this person would be the "incarnation"
of God Almighty who would come down to earth in the form of a human
being in order to walk among us and die on the cross, then why did
this author chose to "water down" his statement by only referring to
him with the generic term used for humans, demons, idols, and angels,
and not the specific term reserved for God Almighty alone?
And finally, we study the term "everlasting father." In the Bible, the
term "everlasting" or "forever" is often used as a figurative term and
does not necessarily convey its literal sense, for example,
1. "and my servant David [shall be] their prince forever." Ezekiel
37:25.
2. and "The king shall joy in thy strength, O LORD ... He asked life
of thee, [and] thou gavest [it] him, [even] length of days for ever
and ever." Psalm 21:1-4
..etc.
The same goes for the use of the term "father". It does not
necessarily mean; "the Heavenly Father" (God), or the biological
father. Let us read for example:
1. Joseph is called a father to Pharaoh. Genesis 45:8,
2. and Job is called the father of the needy. Job 29:16.
..etc.
So, just as king David shall be an "everlasting prince" so too shall
this person be called an "everlasting father." This is the language of
the Jews. This is how it was meant to be understood. We can not simply
interpret a verses in a vacuum of the culture, customs, and verbal
constructs of the people who wrote them. We must always be careful
when "translating" such verses to make sure that we translate them as
they were intended by the author and as his people had come to
understand them.
I am sure that the people of this age would be quite upset if one of
them were to write to their closest friend "you are an angel and a
prince" and then centuries later a Japanese speaking person were to
say: "See? The author has just born witness that his friend is a
divine creature with wings that came down to earth and became royalty.
He says so very clearly right here!"
Well is all of this only my own personal attempt to pervert the verses
and manipulate their meanings? Far from it. Many Christian scholars
have known and recognized the true meaning of this verse and
translated it into English accordingly, however, their translations
were not met with a whole lot of enthusiasm and thus, they did not
receive the same degree of publicity as has such translations as the
King James Version. For example, Mr. J. M. Powis Smith in "The
Complete Bible, an American Translation," quotes this same verse as
follows:
"For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; And the government
will be upon his shoulder; And his name will be called 'Wonderful
counselor is God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace'"
"The Complete Bible, an American Translation," Isaiah 9:6
And again, if we were to read the translation of another Christian,
for example Dr. James Moffatt, we would find that in his translation
"The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments" the verse
reads:
"For a child has been born to us, a child has been given to us; the
royal dignity he wears, and this the title he bears - 'A wonder of a
counselor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince'"
"The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments" Isaiah 9:6
1.2.3.12 How did Jesus' people know him?
So if the followers of Jesus (pbuh) considered God to be their
"Father," then how did they regard Jesus? To answer this let us read
together:
"And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude,
because they counted him as a prophet."
Matthew 14:5 (compare with Matthew 21:26)
"And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of
Galilee."
Matthew 21:11
"But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude,
because they took him for a prophet."
Matthew 21:46
"And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him,
Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and
word before God and all the people:"
Luke 24:19
"The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet."
John 4:19
"Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said,
This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world."
John 6:14
"Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a
truth this is the Prophet."
John 7:40
Indeed, how did Jesus himself describe himself? Let us read:
"Nevertheless I (Jesus) must walk to day, and to morrow, and the [day]
following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem."
Luke 13:33
And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is
not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
Matthew 13:57
This is once again confirmed in the noble Qur'an:
"And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Verily! I am
the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was [revealed]
before me in the Torah"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Saf(61):6
1.2.3.13 Is God a man?
In the Bible we read "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither
the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not
do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?", Numbers
23:19
1.2.3.14 Does God pray to Himself?
Now, does God pray? Let us read the Bible:
1. Mark 14:32 "and he (Jesus) saith to his disciples, Sit ye here,
while I shall pray."
2. Luke 3:21: "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass,
that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened."
3. Luke 6:12: "And it came to pass in those days, that he went out
into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God."
4. Luke 22:44 "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his
sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the
ground."
5. Matthew 26:39: "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face,
and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass
from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
All of these verses do not speak of Jesus (pbuh) "meditating,"
"interceding," "consorting," or "consulting," but PRAYING. But to
whom? To Himself? To another side of his own personality? Is Jesus not
"the same essence" as God, and all are one Trinity? If Jesus and God
are not "the same essence" then this means that there is more than one
God in existence, and thus, we have just directly opposed verse, after
verse, after explicit verse of the Bible, all of which emphasize that
there ever was, and ever shall be, only one God.
Further, Jesus (pbuh) and his disciples are continuously being
described in the Bible as "falling on their faces and praying" which
is exactly the way Muslims pray today (see section 5.6). They pray the
way Jesus (pbuh) did. Have you ever seen a Christian "fall on his
face" and pray to God as Jesus (pbuh), Muhammad (pbuh), and all
Muslims do?
Mr. Tom Harpur says:
"In fact, unless we are prepared to believe that his prayer-dependence
on God was nothing more than a sham for our edification, a mere act to
set us a good example, it is impossible to cling to the orthodox
teaching that Jesus was really God Himself walking about in human
form, the Second Person of the Trinity. The concept of God praying -
let alone praying to Himself - is incomprehensible to me. To say that
it was simply the human side of Jesus talking to God the Father
(rather than his own divine nature as Son of God) is to posit a kind
of schizophrenia that is incompatible with any belief in Jesus' full
humanity"
For Christ's Sake, pp. 42-43.
Think about it, when we are told that Jesus was in the garden
earnestly begging and pleading with God to please, please save him
saying "let this cup pass from me" and "My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?" etc., then:
1. Was this all just a stage play for our benefit?
2. If not, then since there is only ONE God, and Jesus and God are ONE
God, then was Jesus praying to himself? Why?
God has given us the answer in the Qur'an over 1400 years ago. He
says:
"And from those who said: "We are Christians," We took their covenant,
but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them.
Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day
of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do. O
people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come to you,
explaining to you much of that which you used to hide in the
Scripture, and forgiving much. Indeed, there has come to you a light
from Allah and a plain Scripture. Wherewith Allah guides him who seeks
His good pleasure unto paths of peace. He brings them out of darkness
by His will into light, and guides them to a straight path. They
indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of
Mary. Say : Who then has the least power against Allah, if He had
willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone
on earth? And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the
earth and all that is between them. He creates what He will. And Allah
is Able to do all things. The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of
Allah and His loved ones. Say; Why then does He punish you for your
sins? No, you are but mortals of His creating. He forgives whom He
will, and punishes whom He will. And to Allah belongs the dominion of
the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and unto Him
is the return (of all). O people of the Scripture! Now has Our
messenger (Muhammad) come unto you to make things plain after a break
in (the series of) the messengers, lest you should say: There came not
unto us a messenger of cheer nor any Warner. Now has a messenger of
cheer and a Warner come unto you. And Allah is Able to do all
things."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):14-19
i try to send the second part of this dialougue tomorrow
see this site www.sultan.org
Al Bundy
small giant wrote:
Pile it as high as you want. It's still BS.
Stormin Mormon
by Matthew Roper
One morning, several years ago, I had to acquire some materials for a
research project I was working on. In company with two friends, I visited a
small Salt Lake City bookstore operated by a well-known anti-Mormon couple.
The woman, and co-proprietor of this establishment, was most helpful in
assisting me in my aim. While there, I had the opportunity to witness and
also engage in a most interesting conversation with this woman. During our
conversation the question arose as to what, in her view, would constitute
acceptable evidence in support of the Book of Mormon. She struggled with
this question for several minutes, so we asked if some kind of inscription
would do. This would depend, she said. One of my companions then gave her a
hypothetical scenario: Let's suppose non-Mormon archaeologists found an
inscription in highland Guatemala dating to the early sixth century B.C.
with the name Nephi written in Reformed Egyptian. If verified, would such a
find then constitute evidence for the Book of Mormon? Yet our kind host was
unwilling to grant that even this would constitute such evidence, allowing
only that, "it might be a topic of discussion." In leaving her store it was
unclear what if anything would constitute such evidence.
In reflecting on this experience I have been reminded of the words of the
Lord to a young Joseph Smith. No doubt eager to share the excitement of
early sacred experiences with others, the Lord warned, "Behold, if they will
not believe my words, they would not believe you, my servant Joseph, if it
were possible that you should show them all these things which I have
committed unto you" (D&C 5:7).
When dealing with issues of scholarship I believe it is proper and wise for
Latter-day Saints to distinguish between "evidence" and "proof." As I see it
"evidence" is something that tends to support a particular proposition,
theory, or claim. "Proof" is something that is already accepted as
established without question. Frequently in the real world proof only occurs
at an individual level and is a personal judgment which one makes when they
have become convinced that the sum of the evidence taken together is
persuasive enough to accept a proposition as established or true. In
discussions of scholarly issues, people with different opinions may agree
upon the validity of particular pieces of evidence, while still disagreeing
in their final judgment of what the sum of that evidence may mean.
The Book of Mormon claims to be an ancient text compiled by ancient American
prophets that was translated by the gift and power of God by Joseph Smith, a
nineteenth century prophet. One is not going to be able to establish, simply
by scholarly learning, whether or not God lives and really spoke to Joseph
Smith, sent angels to him to reveal the Book of Mormon and so forth.
Scholarly learning is not a tool equipped to deal with questions of the
divine and miracles. For most of us these are questions of faith and they
are questions that can only be fully answered by the examination of
spiritual evidence. It is written in Hebrews, "Now faith is the substance of
things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Note that
faith is not blind trust in a lack of evidence, but the trust in another
kind of evidence that can be discerned spiritually, although not seen. Have
you ever been truly happy? What was it like? Is that real to you? Does that
experience tell you something about what made you feel that way? Was it
good? Of course. Things don't have to be seen with the eye to be real.
[The testimony of the Holy Ghost to the individual] must ever be the chief
source of evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon. All other evidence
is secondary to this, the primary and infallible. No arrangement of
evidence, however skillfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made,
can ever take its place; for this witness of the Holy Spirit to the soul of
man for the truth of the Nephite volume of scripture, is God's evidence to
the truth; and it will ever be the chief reliance of those who accept the
Book of Mormon, and expect to see its acceptance throughout the world.1
This does not mean that we should not examine scholarly issues, however. It
simply means that there is a form of evidence that is primary because it is
more reassuring and ultimately more reliable, enduring and satisfactory.
Still, the fruits of careful scholarship have their place.
To be known, the truth must be stated and the clearer and more complete the
statement is, the better opportunity will the Holy Spirit have for
testifying to the souls of men that the work is true. ...Secondary evidences
in support of truth, like secondary causes in natural phenomena, may be of
first-rate importance, and mighty factors in the achievement of God's
purposes.2
There are many kinds of secondary evidence to consider. I would like to
consider one particular kind of secondary evidence, what I would call
"boomerang hits" in the Book of Mormon. These are elements found in the Book
of Mormon text which have in the past been loudly derided by critics or sent
them into paroxysms of laughter, but which when re-examined today can be
seen in a whole new light.
In 1963 Hugh Nibley observed
It is the "howlers" with which the Book of Mormon abounds that furnish the
best index to its authenticity. They show, first of all, that the book was
definitely not a typical product of its time, and secondly, when they are
examined more closely in the light of present-day evidence, they appear very
different indeed than they did a hundred years ago.3
The "Land of Jerusalem"
"'The land of Jerusalem.'" exclaimed Origen Bacheler in 1838, "There is no
such land. No part of Palestine bears the name of Jerusalem, except the city
itself."4 While the phrase cannot be found in the Bible, it does appear in
the Amarna Tablets, not discovered until 1887, where it appears at least
five times. The phrase also appears in another recently published Dead Sea
Scroll fragment attributed to Jeremiah, which refers to Jeremiah and others
who "were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem."5 Eisenmann and Wise
state that this is a phrase which "greatly enhances the sense of
historicity" of the document in question.6 Might we not now say the same
about the Book of Mormon?
Old World Steel in the Book of Mormon
Nephi states that Laban, a powerful military official in Jerusalem around
600 B.C., possessed a sword with a blade "of the most precious steel" (1
Nephi 4:9).7 Many critics of the Book of Mormon have cited this passage as
evidence against the Book of Mormon's historicity, "Steel," it is argued,
"was not known to man in those days."8 Today, however, it is increasingly
apparent that the practice of "steeling" iron through deliberate
carburization was well known to the Near Eastern world from which the Lehi
colony emerged. "It seems evident that by the beginning of the tenth century
B.C. blacksmiths were intentionally steeling iron."9 A carburized iron knife
dating to the twelfth century B.C. is known from Cyprus.10 In addition to
this, "a site on Mt. Adir in northern Israel has yielded an iron pick in
association with twelfth century pottery. One would hesitate to remove a
sample from the pick for analysis, but it has been possible to test the tip
for hardness. The readings averaged 38 on the Rockwell 'C' scale of
hardness. This is a reading characteristic of modern hardened steel."11
Quenching and tempering, methods of steeling iron, were also known to
Mediterranean blacksmiths during this period.12 Archaeologists recently
discovered a tempered carburized iron sword near Jericho. The sword which
had a bronze haft, was one meter long and dates to the time of King Josiah,
who would have been a contemporary of Lehi.13 Hershall Shanks recently
described the find as "spectacular" since it is "the only complete sword of
its size and type from this period yet discovered in Israel."14 Such
discoveries lend a greater sense of historicity to Nephi's passing comment
in the Book of Mormon.
Cement
In his abridgement of the Nephite chronicle, Mormon recorded that about 46
B.C. a group of Nephites migrated to the land northward. He stated, "The
people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement;
therefore they did build houses of cement in the which they did dwell"
(Helaman 3:7). In 1929, President Heber J. Grant recalled,
When I was a young married man another young man who had received a doctor's
degree ridiculed me for believing in the Book of Mormon. He said he could
point out two lies in that book. One was that the people had built their
homes out of cement and that they were very skillful in the use of cement.
He said there had never been found and never would be found, a house built
of cement by the ancient inhabitants of this country, because the people of
that early age knew nothing about cement. He said that should be enough to
make one disbelieve the book. I said: "That does not affect my faith one
particle. I read the Book of Mormon prayerfully and supplicated God for a
testimony in my heart and soul of the divinity of it, and I have accepted it
and believe it with all my heart." I also said to him, "If my children do
not find cement houses, I expect that my grandchildren will." He said,
"Well, what is the good of talking to a fool like that"15
In more recent years other critics have expressed similar sentiments. John L
Smith, for example, asserts, "There is zero archaeological evidence that any
kind of cement existed in the Americas prior to modern times."16
Once thought to be anachronistic, references to "cement" in the Book of
Mormon (Helaman 3:7,9,11) can be seen today as further evidence of the
authenticity of the text. This is because today the presence of expert
cement technology in pre-Hispanic America is a well-established
archaeological fact. "American technology in the manufacture of cement, its
mixing and placement two thousand years ago, paralleled that of the Greeks
and the Romans during the same period" notes structural engineer, David
Hyman, in a recent study devoted to the use of cement in Pre-Columbian
Mexico. The earliest known sample of such cement dates to the first century
A.D. and is a "fully developed product."17 Known samples of Mesoamerican
cement work show signs of remarkable skill and sophistication. "Technology
in the manufacturing of calcareous cements in Middle America [were] equal to
any in the world at the advent of the Christian Era."18 For example,
concrete floor slabs at Teotihuacan that date to about this time exceed many
present-day building requirements.19 While the earliest known samples are
from the first century A.D., scholars believe that "their degree of
perfection could not have been instantaneously created, but rather would
have required a considerable period of development" before then.20 Hyman
asks, "Were these materials invented by indigenous unnamed people far
preceding the occupation of Teotihuacan, or were they introduced by an
exotic culture."21 In its references to "cement," the Book of Mormon
anticipates what has now been well established.
Names
Critics of the Book of Mormon have been reluctant to grant the historical
complexity of Book of Mormon names, even when faced with scholarly evidence
supporting their authenticity. One man after writing a series of
inflammatory letters designed to elicit negative comments about Latter-day
Saint scriptures from prominent Near Eastern scholars, received a response
from William F. Albright of John's Hopkins University. Contrary to this
individual's expectations, Albright expressed doubts that Joseph Smith could
have learned Egyptian from any nineteenth century sources. Explaining that
he was a Protestant and hence not a believer in the Book of Mormon, he
observed, "It is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names,
Paanch[i] and Pahor[an] which appear in the Book of Mormon in close
connection with a reference to the original language being 'Reformed
Egyptian.'" Puzzled at the existence of such names in an obscure book
published by Joseph Smith in 1830, Albright vaguely suggested that the young
Mormon leader was some kind of "religious genius."22 Incensed by this
response, this same critic wrote to another scholar in England. Without
mentioning Albright by name, he complained of "another scholar who is
renowned in ancient Semitic studies" who "though a Protestant, he writes of
the Book of Mormon like it had authentic Egyptian-Hebrew support. He even
offered me what he said were two good Egyptian names in the Book of
Mormon-Paanchi and Pahoran. ...Certainly he would know Joseph Smith didn't
understand Egyptian, but why would he leave an impression that Joseph Smith
was on the right track?"23
Alma
Critics have occasionally had fun at Latter-day Saint expense since the Book
of Mormon has several prophets known as Alma. Here are a few comments that
are typical:
Alma is supposed to be a prophet of God and of Jewish ancestry in the Book
of Mormon. In Hebrew Alma means a betrothed virgin maiden-hardly a fitting
name for a man.24
In most of the United States Alma is a woman's name. However, in Utah, only
the men are named Alma... Thus we see that even in peoples names, Mormonism
redefines Christian words to suit its meanings.25
So Mormons who name their sons Alma have actually named them 'lass' or
'virgin' or a young woman. Interesting!26
We still find it interesting that so many Mormons saddle their sons with a
word that means 'lass' or 'damsel.' It reminds us of the 'boy named Sue.'
Again, Mormonism has redefined a word. ...Typical of the strange definitions
that Mormonism gives familiar terms, perhaps we should not think it strange
that Mormonism gives boys a girl's name.27
As can be seen, critics have had a lot of fun with the name Alma, however,
in the 1960s Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin discovered a land deed near
the Dead Sea dating to the early second century A.D. and rendered the name
of a Jew mentioned therein as "Alma ben Yehuda" showing for the first time
in modern history that the name Alma was an authentic Hebrew male name.28
Additional research in Ebla, in what is modern Syria, has also turned up
this name showing that it goes back to nearly 2200 B.C.29
Jershon
The Book of Mormon name Jershon can be traced to a Hebrew root meaning "to
inherit." In the Book of Mormon we read "Behold, we will give up the land of
Jershon, which is on the east by the sea...and this land of Jershon is the
land which we will give unto our brethren for an inheritance" (Alma 27:22).
Shilum
Alma 11:5-15 describes various monetary units which the Nephites used at one
point in their history. Alma 11:16 in our current edition of the Book of
Mormon states that one of these units was a "shiblum." However, both the
1830 edition of the Book of Mormon and the Printer's manuscript indicate
that this originally read "shilum." Significantly, Shilum is a perfectly
good Hebrew word. It literally means "retribution...a fee: recompense,
reward." That makes sense in a monetary context doesn't it?
Nahom
Nephi recorded, "And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in
the place which was called Nahom. And it came to pass that the daughters of
Ishmael did mourn exceedingly, because of the loss of their father" (1 Nephi
16:34-35). Biblical scholars point to the root NHM meaning to "comfort" or
"console." In some forms the word "comes simply to mean 'suffer emotional
pain'. The sense 'be comforted' is retained in context of mourning for the
dead."30 Damrosch notes that all references to NHM in the Hebrew Bible are
associated with death. "In family settings, it is applied in instances
involving death of an immediate family member (parent, sibling, or child);
in national settings, it has to do with the survival or impending
extermination of an entire people. At heart, naham means 'to mourn,' to come
to terms with a death; these usages are usually translated...by the verb 'to
comfort,' as when Jacob's children try to comfort their father after the
reported death of Joseph."31 The events in 1 Nephi 16:34-35 fit this context
quite well since we are told that Ishmael, a close family member, died and
his daughters mourn and murmur.
Alan Goff was written a important article on the meaning of NHM as it
relates to 1 Nephi 16:34-39).32 Goff was apparently the first to note that
the significance of this term may go beyond the obvious context of mourning
for the dead. Nephi related, "And Laman said unto Lemuel and also unto the
sons of Ishmael: Behold let us slay our father, and also our brother
Nephi....And it came to pass that the Lord was with us, yea even the voice
of the Lord came and did speak many words unto them, and did chasten them
exceedingly; and after they were chastened by the voice of the Lord they did
turn away their anger, and did repent of their sins, insomuch that the Lord
did bless us again with food, that we did not perish" (1 Nephi 16:37, 39).
According to one scholar, the term NHM can also be "extended to describe the
release of emotional tension involved in performing a declared action
(executing wrath), or retracting a declared action (such as sin, punishment
or blessing)."33 Damarosch notes that the Hebrew term naham is sometimes
applied to contexts involving "cases of regret or change of heart"
frequently "when the repenter is meditating murder. 'Repentance' [or change
of heart] then involves either the decision to kill, or conversely, the
decision to stop killing. The term can then be used in quite ignoble
circumstances, as when Esau comforts himself for the loss of his birthright
by deciding to kill Jacob (Gen. 27:42), but usually it is God who repents,
either negatively or positively; negatively, by deciding to destroy his
people; positively, by commuting a sentence of destruction."34 Again, this
explanation clearly fits the context of 1 Nephi 16:34-39 where Laman and
Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael contemplate the murder of their father Lehi
and their brother Nephi and where the Lord is angry with them and where
after being chastened by the Lord they turn away their anger and repent of
their sins and the Lord also apparently turns away his wrath and does not
destroy them with hunger. It is also interesting that while they had up
until this time been traveling southward (1 Nephi 16:13) they now turn and
travel eastward (1 Nephi 17:1).
Sheum
According to Zeniff's record in the Book of Mormon account, "And we began to
till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds of corn, and of wheat,
and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum" (Mosiah 9:9). "Pray tell me
what kinds of grain neas and sheum are? Joseph Smith's translation needs
another translation, to render it intelligible."35 "We must reluctantly pass
on denying the existence of neas and sheum, and put them into the same
category as the unidentifiable cureloms and cumoms."36 As it turns out sheum
is a perfectly good Akkadian (ancient northern Mesopotamian) name for a
grain dating to the third millennium B.C.37 This term, se um, (the s is
pronounced sh in semitic languages) was a term by which these ancient Near
Eastern peoples referred to barley, although it could also be applied to
other kinds of grains. Book of Mormon peoples seem to have applied this Old
World name to some New World crop. Could Joseph Smith have derived this name
from some nineteenth century book? Impossible. Akkadian could not be read
until 1857, twenty-seven years after the Book of Mormon was published and
thirteen years after the Prophet was dead. This raises an interesting
question. If Joseph Smith was really the author of the Book of Mormon, how
did he come up with the word sheum? How did he just happen to choose this
particular name and just happen to use it in an agricultural context?
Barley in the Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon states that the people of Zeniff cultivated barley in the
promised land (Mosiah 9:9). In 1887 M.T. Lamb wrote, "It is a somewhat
stubborn fact that barley was never found upon either of these western
continents until imported by Europeans in modern times!"38 In 1910 Charles
Shook asked, "But where is the proof of this extraordinary assertion? It
seems very probable that, if Americans had once had ... barley, they would
not have given up [its] cultivation and use, and yet [it was] not to be
found in America when the Europeans came." Shook then noted that while
ancient Pre-Columbian sites were known in Peru, Arizona and Ohio for
example, "not a vestige" of barley has ever been found" at any of these
sites.39
"In this book, we are told," stated William Biederwolf in a widely
circulated anti-Mormon pamphlet, "that barley was among the produce of the
earth, whereas all respected scholarship is absolutely positive in its
authority" that barley is only a modern New World crop.40 In 1964 Gordon
Fraser asserted, "The only grain known in America was maize."41 Elsewhere
the same author described the Book of Mormon references to barley as one of
numerous "verifiable blunders" found in the Book of Mormon.42 In a popular
anti-Mormon work published in 1979, former Mormon Latayne Colvett Scott
could safely affirm what previous critics already knew that, "barley never
grew in the New World before the white man brought it here!"43 Other
Evangelical critics were even more smug, "If there was no barley in America
until the white man came, then [the Book of Mormon] must be false. If God
were the one that wrote the Book of Mormon, is it not a reasonable
assumption that he would have known there was no barley in the New World?
The Book of Mormon...falls short of authenticatable [sic] truth."44
As this last statement was being written, archaeologists discovered several
specimens of pre-Columbian domesticated barley while excavating a Hohokam
Indian site near Phoenix, Arizona. "Perhaps the most startling evidence of
Hohokam agricultural sophistication came last year when salvage
archaeologists found preserved grains of what looks like domesticated
barley, the first ever found in the New World."45 This startling discovery
was later confirmed by additional discoveries in both Oklahoma and Illinois.
"It is reasonable to conclude that we are looking at a North American
domesticated grain crop whose existence has not been suspected."46 Or as
another set of botanists states, "[Our] project reveal[s] a previously
unidentified seed type now identified as little barley (Hordeum pusillum),
and there are strong indications that this grain must be added to the list
of starchy-seeded plants that were cultivated in the region by 2000 years
ago."47 Of course it was the Book of Mormon that first pointed this out.
Conclusion
Let's imagine a scenario. Suppose I read the Book of Mormon some time ago,
say, in the 1970s. I read about the Nephites having barley. I reject the
Book of Mormon because there is no evidence for pre-Columbian barley. This
was, after all, the scholarly consensus-there was no pre-Columbian
domesticated barley in the New World period! But now it turns out that this
view was wrong. There was in fact archaeological evidence for barley in
pre-Columbian America. It just hadn't been discovered yet. Let's suppose I
had even staked my life on the belief in opinion of scholars that there was
no such grain before Columbus. Wouldn't I have made a terrible mistake? The
example of pre-Columbian barley should be a warning to us that similar
evidences for the Book of Mormon, which at present seem to be anachronisms,
may yet be forthcoming as well
.
Notes
1 B.H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909),
2:vi-vii.
2 Ibid., vii-viii.
3 Hugh Nibley, "Howlers in the Book of Mormon" Millennial Star 125 (February
1963): 28.
4 Origen Bachelor, Mormonism Exposed Internally and Externally. (New York:
Privately Published, 1838), 14.
5 Eisenmann and Wise, 57-58.
6 Ibid.
7 Noah Webster's 1828 English dictionary defines "steel" as "iron combined
with a small portion of carbon; iron refined and hardened...particularly
useful as the material of edged tools." Noah Webster, An American Dictionary
of the English Language. 2 vols. (New York: S. Converse, 1828), 2:80.
8 Stuart Martin, The Mystery of Mormonism. (London: Odhams Press, 1920), 44.
9 Robert Maddin, James D. Muhly and Tamara S. Wheeler, "How the Iron Age
Began," Scientific American 237/4 (October 1977): 127.
10 Ibid. The knife shows evidence of quenching. See Tamara S. Wheeler and
Robert Maddin, "Metallurgy and Ancient Man," in The Coming Age of Iron. (New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980), 121.
11 Maddin, Muhly, and Wheeler, "How the Iron Age Began," 127.
12 Ibid., 131. James D, Muhly, "How iron technology changed the ancient
world" Biblical Archaeology Review (November-December 1982): In Hershall
Shanks, Archaeology and the Bible: The Best of BAR (1990) 1:234.
13 Hershall Shanks, "Antiquities Director Confronts Problems and
Controversies," Biblical Archaeology Review 12/4 (July-August 1986): 33, 35.
14 Ibid.
15 Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, April 1929, 129.
16 John L. Smith, "What about those Gold Plates?" The Utah Evangel 33/6
(September 1986): 8.
17 David S. Hyman, Pre-Columbian Cements: A Study of the Calcareous Cements
in Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican Building Construction (Baltimore: John's
Hopkins University, 1970), ii.
18 Ibid., 6-15.
19 Ibid., 6-7.
20 Ibid., 6-15.
21 Ibid., 6-16.
22 William F. Albright to Grant S. Heward, Baltimore, Maryland, 25 July
1966.
23 Grant S. Heward to I.E.S. Edwards, Midvale, Utah, 14 March 1967. I would
like to thank Boyd Peterson for providing this reference.
24 Walter Martin, The Maze of Mormonism (Santa Ana, California: Vision
House, 1978), 327.
25 Robert McKay, "A Mormon Name" Utah Evangel 31/8 (August 1984): 4.
26 John L. Smith, editorial comment on Robert McKay, "A Mormon Name" Utah
Evangel 31/8 (August 1984): 4.
27 "That Man Alma" Utah Evangel 33/3 (April 1986): 2.
28 Yigael Yadin, Bar-Kokhba (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965), 176.
29 Terrence L. Szink, "Further evidence of a semitic Alma" Journal of Book
of Mormon Studies 8/1 (1999): 70.
30 H. Van Dyke Parunak, "A Semantic Survey of NHM," Biblica 56 (1975): 532.
31 David Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant. (San Francisco: Harper and Row,
1987), 128-129.
32 Alan Goff, "Mourning , Consolation, and Repentance at Nahom," in John L.
Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon:
Insights You May Have Missed Before. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and
FARMS, 1991), 92-99.
33 Parunak, "A Semantic Survey of NHM," 532.
34 Damrosch, Narrative Covenant, 129.
35 Origen Bacheler, Mormonism Exposed, 14.
36 Latayne Colvett Scott, The Mormon Mirage: A former Mormon tells why she
left the Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979), 84.
37 Hildegard Lewy, "On Some Old Assyrian Cereal Names," Journal of the
American Oriental Society 76/4 (October-December 1956): 201-204.
38 M.T. Lamb, The Golden Bible, or, The Book of Mormon: Is It From God? (New
York: Ward & Drummond, 1887), 304.
39 Charles A. Shook, Cumorah Revisited... (Cincinnati: The Standard
Publishing Company, 1910), 382-383.
40 William Edward Biederwolf, Mormonism Under the Searchlight (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 1947).
41 Gordon Fraser, What Does the Book of Mormon Teach? An Examination of the
Historical and Scientific Statements of the Book of Mormon (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1964), 90.
42 Gordon Fraser, Is Mormonism Christian? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), 141.
43 Latayne Colvett Scott, The Mormon Mirage: A Former Mormon Tells Why She
Left the Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979), 82.
44 Rick Branch, "Nephite Nickels." The Utah Evangel 29/10 (October 1982): 1.
45 Daniel B. Adams, "Last Ditch Archaeology," Science 83 (December 1983):
32.
46 V.L. Bohrer, "Domesticated and Wild Crops in the CAEP Study Area," in
P.M. Spoerl and G.J. Gumerman, eds., Prehistoric Cultural Development in
Central Arizona: Archaeology of the Upper New River Region (Southern
Illinois University at Carbondale Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Occasional paper 5, 1984): 252.
47 Nancy and David Asch, "Archaeobotany," Deer Track: A Late Woodland
Village in the Mississippi Valley, edited by Charles R. McGimsey and Michael
D. Conner (Kampsville, Illinois: Center for American Archaeology, 1985), 44.
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Al Bundy" <MSfo...@mcpmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2c86d32-a063-4013...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Stormin Mormon
OF FAITH.
In the spring of 1842, the Prophet Joseph Smith sent a letter to John
Wentworth, who was editor of a newspaper called the Chicago Democrat. This
letter contained an account of many of the events of early Church history.
The document also contained thirteen statements outlining Latter-day Saint
beliefs. These have come to be known as the Articles of Faith, which are
given below.
The Articles of Faith are official doctrine of the Church and have been
canonized as a part of latter-day scripture. They are clear statements of
belief that help members understand the basic beliefs of the Church and
explain these beliefs to others. They are not, however, a complete summary
of Church doctrine. Through living prophets, the Church is guided by
continuous revelation and inspiration.
1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and
in the Holy Ghost.
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for
Adam's transgression.
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be
saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:
first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by
immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift
of the Holy Ghost.
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the
laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and
administer in the ordinances thereof.
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church,
namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions,
healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated
correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we
believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining
to the Kingdom of God.
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of
the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the
American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and,
that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the
dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let
them worship how, where, or what they may.
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in
doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of
Paul--We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many
things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything
virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these
things.
Joseph Smith.