Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately!  See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.

Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

Answering Islam’s Desperate Attempts

By Abdullah Kareem

 

[Part I] [Part II] [Part III] [Part IV]

 


HE WROTE

Instead of passing on this warning, Abdullah Smith does the exact opposite. He elevates the author and increase his weight by introducing his quotation with the statement: "The scholar Kersey Graves exposes the pagan title “son of God”, which originated from the pagan cults." Abdullah Smith can hardly plead ignorance or oversight on this issue. He knows very well, that Graves is not considered a scholar even by virulently anti-Christian atheists.

 

 

RESPONSE:

Just because the Infidels website does not agree with Kersey Graves, does not mean his writings are not genuine. The Infidels website never openly disagrees with Kersey Graves (a lawyer), but only casts doubt. The website “answering islam” is trapped because they cannot destroy Kersey Graves. We quote from Graves because he boldly exposes Christianity.

The Church Forgery Mill

The "Gospel" Forgeries

The Saintly "Fathers" Of The Faith


Recommend books:

Christianity Before Christ by John G. Jackson

Paganism in Our Christianity by Arthur Weigall

Pagan Christianity: The Origins of Our Modern Church Practices  by Frank Viola

Christianity: The Origins of a Pagan Religion by Philippe Walter

Jesus Christ, Sun of God by David Fideler


Message to BK

No wonder you’re a spineless Muslims, you converted to Christianity because your spineless. You have no militancy for Allah (swt).


HE WROTE: (Wildcat)

In fact, utilizing questionable sources for information about the Bible and/or Christianity seems to be a staple of Mr. Smith. Of the numerous articles of his that I've read (which is a sizeable number, though not exhaustive), Smith regularly reproduces quotes from non-authorities like Tom Harpur, Lloyd Graham, G.A. Wells, Thomas Payne, etc., whose views would not be taken seriously by mainstream New Testament scholars. (Amazingly, Smith even quoted Dan Brown as an authority in a couple of rebuttals (1, 2) to Sam Shamoun! Until seeing that I wouldn't have thought it likely that even the most uninformed of atheists and/or Muslim apologists would have reached that deeply into the proverbial well of desperation.) Members of the Jesus Seminar (like e.g. Robert Funk) are among the few sources I've seen utilized regularly by Smith that would even be treated as recognized authorities in the field of New Testament scholarship, though even their views represent the radical, left-wing fringe of New Testament scholarship and would not be representative of mainstream views. The only scholar that I've seen used by Smith that could truly be considered "mainstream" would be the late, great Raymond Brown. While Brown was clearly not an inerrantist (which was one reason that Smith was able to quote him to confirm one or more of his arguments), he did however confirm key Christian doctrines like the virgin birth, divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

All of this is not to say that Smith's views are rendered incorrect simply because they go against the mainstream, or even because the majority of his arguments seem to stem from non-scholarly sources (Robert Funk and Raymond Brown being a couple of the noted exceptions). However, it does demonstrate the methodological fallacy involved in merely providing quotes by such non-authorities and simply concluding that the material provided in these quotes is "gospel-truth". The reader would certainly be diligent to consider such viewpoints critically, and that's putting it generously.


RESPONSE:

 

Tom Harper is a former professor of the New Testament. Here is what Canadian newspapers (he is Canadian) says about his books:

Full of convincing research on the parallels between Christianity and ancient religions and philosophies. Canadian Press

The "Pagan Christ"...challenges complacency and opens new vistas of insight to the serious thinker. The Toronto Star

A thoroughly captivating book...[Harpur] describes and shares his intellectual journey extremely powerfully. The Globe and Mail

A truly remarkable work. The Edmonton Journal

Of special interest to Christians, [The Pagan Christ]provides nourishing food for thought for questing members of all religious faiths. The Hamilton Spectator

Those who cannot accept literal orthodoxy and those whose spiritual quest is not yet at an end, will find renewed faith and hope in Harpur's brave work. The Calgary Herald 


A startling look at the pervasiveness of myth, at the way members of all religions are brothers and sisters. The United Church Observer : http://www.amazon.ca/




The scholar Tom Harper exposes facts about Christianity that most people do not know. Here are a few examples:

 

(1). The letter ‘J’ was added to the name “Jesus” in the 16th century.


Christians and others assume that the Greek name Jesus was the original name of the Saviour. This was impossible. The name Jesus did not exist, and would not have been spelled with the letter J, until about six hundred years ago. There was no J in any language prior to the fourteenth century in England. The letter did not become widely used until the seventeenth century. The Encyclopedia Americana contains the following on the letter J: “The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol J or I used initially generally had to be the sound of Y as in year. Gradually the two symbols of J and I were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiations became accepted in England. In the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, there was no J letter because it did not exist. James was spelled Iames and Jesus was spelled Iesous. In the ancient Latin and Greek languages, Jesus was spelled with the letter I. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 219)


(2) The early Christian Church never used the cross symbol:


It needs to be better known that the true sign of Christianity for the earliest centuries of Church history was not a crucifix---a  cross bearing the figure of Jesus---but either a bare cross or one with a lamb fastened to it. In the entire iconography of the catacombs, no figure of a man on a cross appears for the first six or seven centuries of the era.  It will come as a surprise to many that the first known figure of a god on a cross is a likeness of the sun god Orpheus from some three centuries B.C.E. The crucifix on the amulet on the cover of The Jesus Mysteries, by Freke and Gandy, clearly depicts this image. Not until 692, in the reign of Emperor Justinian, was it decreed by the Church (through the Trullan Council) that the figure of the historical Jesus on the cross should supersede that of “the lamb, as in former times”. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, pp. 45-46)



(3). There were crucified saviors who died for the sins of mankind.

 

“The divine teacher is called, is tested by the “adversary”, gathers disciples, heals the sick, preaches the Good News about God’s kingdom, finally runs afoul of his bitter enemies, suffers, dies, and is resurrected after three days. This is the total pattern of the sun god in all the ancient dramas”. (The Pagan Christ, p. 145)



(4). The early Church destroyed the pagan documents to cover up the fraud:


Epiphanius (315 403), the rigidly conservative bishop of Salamiz, in an attack upon the “Sabellian heretics” (who found they couldn’t follow the majority view of the Trinity), wrote that “the whole of their errors…they derive from…that which is called the Gospel of the Egyptians”. Kuhn remarks, “Priceless in value would be that same Gospel of the Egyptians if Christian fury had not destroyed it. Another priceless book, The True Logos by Celsus, one of the most noted Pagan philosophers of the second century, was likewise burned. The brilliant Gnostic philosopher Basildes (c. 135-150) taught at Alexandria in the second quarter of the second century and claimed to know of a secret tradition transmitted by St. Peter himself. He was highly regarded even by so eminent a Christian theologian and Church Father as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215). Yet according to Eusebius, his irreplaceable, widely renowned Interpretations of the Gospels – in twenty-four splendid volumes – were all burned “by order of the Church”. Thirty-six priceless volumes written by Porphyry (c. 232-303), one of the most learned and brilliant minds of his era, were destroyed by the Church Fathers. Porphyry, a Neoplatonist philosopher who could not accept the divinity of Christ and who exposed numerous inconsistencies in the Gospels, had tried official Christianity for a brief time but found it sadly wanting. Fifteen of his burned books formed a special series called Against the Christians. Scholars would give a lot to have them now.

All of this mayhem was a further deliberate attempt to "blot out all links" between the Christian body of doctrine and any Pagan material. The top Church authorities were not content with the original, specious allegation that Satan had been behind all the amazing resemblances – they even talked of "anticipated plagiarism", charging that the devil stole the rites, doctrines, and dogmas centuries before they became accepted by the Church – so they destroyed as far as possible the entire Pagan record to obliterate the evidence of their own dishonesty. (The Pagan Christ, pp. 61-63)

 


(5) The date of Jesus’ birth (December 25th) was borrowed from the pagan cults:


The evidence that Christianity was in its beginnings firmly rooted in an Egyptian-style, equinoctial mode of thinking still abounds today. The birthday of Jesus Christ was first celebrated by the earliest Church in the spring of the year. But in 345, Pope Julius decreed that the birthday (nobody knew any precise date for it, suggesting again that the entire thing was pure myth) should thenceforth be held on December 25, three days after the “death” of the winter solstice and the same day on which the births of Mithras, Dionysus, the Sol Invictus (unconquerable sun), and several other gods were traditionally celebrated. Few Christians today realize that in the fifth century, Pope Leo the Great had to tell Church members to stop worshipping the sun. The first ostensibly Christian emperor, Constantine, who converted to the new faith at the beginning of the fourth century, was still worshipping the sun god Helios many years later, as coins and other evidence reveal. (ibib, p. 82)


(6). The Gospel of Mark fails to record important details of Jesus’ life.


Mark, the earliest Gospel, omits everything before Jesus’ appearance as an adult man at the Jordon River to be baptized by John. It contains no birth narratives, no genealogies, no traces of childhood or youth whatever. This is a strange way to begin any attempt at a “life’ of a person clearly regarded as spectacular. (ibid, p. 144)

Basically, all these facts are true. Should we dismiss Tom Harper’s credibility for speaking the truth?  Yet, the rebuttals to Mr. Harper by Tektonics are desperate attempts to back-up “Pauline Christianity”. Do Christians know that True Christianity of early Jewish tradition no longer exists?  Are “Christians” today the followers of Jesus? Nay, they don’t follow him at all.

The Christian scholars I quote are reliable because I only quote paragraphs that are backed up. For example, the scholar Tom Harper (or Lloyd Graham) speak about the Bible’s corruption. The early Church fathers also testified to the Bible’s corruption 1. It is wrong to say these scholars are unreliable just because they don’t accept the Bible to be 100 % God’s word. They are liberal scholars who have studied Christianity and the Bible for decades.

What about Dan Barker? He used to be a Christian preacher, but later became atheist. [1]

What about John Shelby Spong? He is a former Episcopal (Anglican) bishop, I quote him frequently.


The book of Dan Brown is supported by the Gospel of Philip (which says Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene on the lips).

Lloyd Graham is reliable because his book records the history of the Church (pp. 345-420).

Tom Harper’s book is correct when it says the cross was not used by the early Christians.

GA Wells is correct when he said the earliest documents do not record Jesus’ life.

Thomas Paine said: "I sincerely detest it, the Bible as I detest everything that is cruel." [2]


Let us read what Marcion said regarding the Bible:

The Creator God is inconsistent, in respect of persons, sometimes disapproving where approbation is deserved; or else lacking in foresight, bestowing approbation on men who ought rather be reprobated, as if he either censured his own past judgements, or could not forecast his future ones.

With fickleness and improvidence he repented, or on some recollection of some wrong-doing, because the Creator actually says "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king" (1 Samuel 15:11), his repentance in the sense of an acknowledgement of some evil work or error. This is also the case in the matter of the Ninevites, when the Book of Jonah (3:10) states,
"And God repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them; and he did not."

The Creator called out to Adam, "Where art thou?" as if ignorant of where Adam was; and when Adam alleged that the shame of his nakedness was the reason for hiding himself, the Creator inquired whether he had eaten of the tree, as if he were in doubt (Genesis 3:9-11).

In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, he says "I will go down now, to see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come to me; and if not, I will know"; another instance of his uncertainty in ignorance.

The Creator God was even mean enough in his very fierceness, when, in his wrath against the people for their consecration of the golden calf, he makes this request to Moses: "Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make thee a great nation" (Exodus 32:10). Moses is better than his God, as the deprecator and indeed, the averter of his anger, "For Thou shalt not do this; or else destroy me along with them" (Exodus 32:32). (Antithesis, [3]

In conclusion to this part, why should I quote mainstream scholars because they agree with your precious views? The anti-Christian views of Liberal scholars are authentic.

Thomas Paine is reliable and trustworthy:


Thomas Paine (January 29, 1737June 8, 1809) was an intellectual, scholar, revolutionary, deist and idealist. A radical pamphleteer, Paine anticipated and helped foment the American Revolution through his powerful writings, most notably Common Sense, an incendiary pamphlet advocating independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain. [1]

The website Tektonics has published a very weak response to Thomas Paine’s writings.


The liberal Christian scholars like Tom Harper are gaining popularity amongst Christians. What about Charles Templeton and his book Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith? What about Dan Barker (a former preacher) and his book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist? We shall never surrender to your whimsical desires.

This Infidel wants us to quote (mainstream) Christian scholars because they profess Christianity, whereas the liberal Christians expose Christianity for the fraud that it is.

 

The “Answering Islam” is responsible for using biased translations of the Quran by non-Muslims!  The “Quran contradictions” are false because they depend upon the distorted English versions. How are Muslims supposed to trust you?

Shamoun wrote:

Allah is the best liar and deceiver of them all!

Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive God, but He deceives them; and when they rise up to pray, they rise up lazily to be seen of men, and do not remember God, except a few; S. 4:142 Palmer [1]

 
RESPONSE:

Here is the true reading of 4:142

The Hypocrites - they think they are over-reaching Allah, but He will over-reach them: When they stand up to prayer, they stand without earnestness, to be seen of men, but little do they hold Allah in remembrance; (4:142, Yusuf Ali)

Shamoun’s favorite word al-makireen is not present in the Arabic text!

Here is the transliteration of S. 4:142

Inna almunafiqeena yukhadiAAoona Allaha wahuwa khadiAAuhum waitha qamoo ila alssalati qamoo kusala yuraoona alnnasa wala yathkuroona Allaha illa qaleelan

So Palmer’s translation is false, the Arabic word al-makireen is not used.


Why the double standard?
 

The infidel Shamoun has offered a very silly response, he clearly deceived the readers that Quran 4:142 says Allah is a “deceiver”.  The Arabic word almakireena which means “schemer” is not used in 4:142 (Arabic text). The scholar Pickthall translates the Arabic word as “schemer” which Shamoun translates “deceiver” to satisfy his hatred. The Muslim recitation of the Quran always ends with the formula Sadaqallah hul Azeem' (Allah speaks the truth).

There are only two places in the Quran where almakireena is used, its 3:54 and 8:30. The Holy Quran never portrays Allah as deceptive, it teaches the exact opposite!

Read the following verses:


Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Quran. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph. (Al-Quran 9:111)

It was never Allah's (part) that he should send a folk astray after He had guided them until He had made clear unto them what they should avoid. Lo! Allah is Aware of all things. (Al-Quran 9:115)

Hath not the fame of those before them reached them the folk of Noah, Aad, Thamud, the folk of Abraham, the dwellers of Midian and the disasters (which befell them)? Their messengers (from Allah) came unto them with proofs (of Allah's sovereignty). So Allah surely wronged them not, but they did wrong themselves. (Al-Quran 9:70)

The likeness of that which they spend in this life of the world is as the likeness of a biting, icy wind which smiteth the harvest of a people who have wronged themselves, and devastateth it. Allah wronged them not, but they did wrong themselves. (Al-Quran 3:117)

And say (unto them): Act! Allah will behold your actions, and (so will) His messenger and the believers, and ye will be brought back to the Knower of the invisible and the visible, and He will tell you what ye used to do. (Al-Quran 9:105)

Had it been a near adventure and an easy journey they had followed thee, but the distance seemed too far for them. Yet will they swear by Allah (saying): If we had been able we would surely have set out with you. They destroy their souls, and Allah knoweth that they verily are liars. (Al-Quran 9:42)

O ye who believe! Fear Allah, and (always) say a word directed to the Right: He will adjust your works for you and will forgive you your sins. Whosoever obeyeth Allah and His messenger, he verily hath gained a signal victory. (Al-Quran 33:70-71)


How many readers have been deceived by Shamoun’s biased translation before my rebuttal was written? 

IF Shamoun continues to insist that almakireena means “deceiver”, we argue God destroyed only His enemies, he never deceived them (literally). The Yusuf Ali translation makes this clear: “…but He will over-reach them…” (4:142). This means God over-powered the disbelievers and hypocrites, the Quran is blatantly clear that GOD speaks the truth (9:42, 70, 111).

 

(These are) the ones who wait and watch about you: if ye do gain a victory from Allah, they say: "Were we not with you?"- but if the unbelievers gain a success, they say (to them): "Did we not gain an advantage over you, and did we not guard you from the believers?" but Allah will judge betwixt you on the Day of Judgment. And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers. (Al-Quran 4:141)

 

God will never allow the disbelievers to triumph over the Believers, so God shall “over reach” (overpower) them. It has nothing to do with deceiving.

I personally challenge Shamoun to produce one verse from the Quran where God deceives the Believers.  The verses 3:54 and 8:30 only speak to the disbelievers! 



HE WROTE:

This one is my absolute favorite among all of Smith's scholarly quotes
. Smith claims: "Jerome, the 4th century Latin scholar also said: “Great is the force of deceit! provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention” 2"

When we go to Smith's source we find that the citation was removed. I tried to follow the quotation to find out where he got it from. First, I found that his claim about Jerome is false. The quotation, or rather the misquotation, is actually found in the writings of St. John Chrysostom. Second, I found that the actual quote says the following:

RESPONSE:

Regardless of whether Jerome said these words, the bishop John Chrysostom is recorded to have said:

“Woman is an inevitable evil, an eternal mischief, an attractive calamity, a domestic risk, a charming and decorated misfortune”  [1]

You weak ignorant person, Jerome is responsible for introducing the law of ascetism in the Church. He despised the law of marriage and rejected the Biblical laws of marriage. He despised sexual intercourse and promoted celibacy!

 Jerome on Marriage and Sex

 



HE WROTE:

The matter gets even funnier when he says: "The dubious Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 340 CE) is reported to have said: 'It is an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interests of the church might be promoted 1."

This one is extremely hilarious because his source, which is a guy named "Bill Zebub" (an allusion to a name of Satan (*), something that should certainly boost the confidence in the quality of his writings in Muslim eyes) doesn't mention where he got his quote from. But after a little research I found the source which turned out to be nothing less than the very scholarly book <wink> by Madame Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, Vol. II, p. 303.

Her actual words were: "the maxim adopted later by the Church that "it is an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interests of the Church might be promoted." A maxim applied in its fullest sense by that accomplished professor in forgery, the Armenian Eusebius; or yet, that innocent-looking bible-kaleidoscopistIrenaeus."

 

RESPONSE:


The religion of Christianity was dominated by forgery and fraud. The bishop Eusebius of Caesarea forged the Josephus passage:

“…Ken Olson has argued that that the Testimonium was fabricated by Eusebius of Caesarea, who was the first author to quote it in his Demonstratio Evangelica. [2]. Olson argues that the specific wording of the Testimonium is suspiciously closely related to the argument Eusebius makes in his Demonstratio, in particular that Jesus is a "wise man" and not a "wizard", as shown by the fact that his followers did not desert him even after he was crucified. The first Catholic authority to condemn the Eusebius reference to the Testimonium Flavianum as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770). He said, “This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.” [1]

 

Other forgeries of Eusebius:

But, when and how did this famous passage get into The Antiquities of the Jews? It is pertinent to ask. The first mention ever made of this passage, and its text, are in the Church History of that “very dishonest writer,” Bishop Eusebius, in the fourth century,—he who forged the Letters between Abgar and Jesus, falsely declaring that he had found the original documents in the official archives, whence he had copied and translated them into his Ecclesiastical History. [2]

[T]hat "very dishonest writer," Bishop Eusebius, in the fourth century...forged the Letters between Abgar and Jesus, falsely declaring that he had found the original documents in the official archives, whence he had copied and translated them into his Ecclesiastical History... If the Gospel tales were true, why should God need pious lies to give them credit? Lies and forgeries are only needed to bolster up falsehood: "Nothing stands in need of lying but a lie." But Jesus Christ must needs be propagated by lies upon lies; and what better proof of his actuality than to exhibit letters written by him in his own handwriting? The "Little Liars of the Lord" were equal to the forgery of the signature of their God - false letters in his name, as above cited from that exhaustive mine of clerical falsities, the Catholic Encyclopedia. [3]


Bishop Eusebius is thus seen to have been a most circumstantial liar and a well-skilled forger for God. From this episcopal lie sprouted like toadstools a whole literature of “various books concerning Abgar the King and Thaddaeus the Apostle,” in which are preserved to posterity a series of five letters—very much in the style of modern patent-medicine testimonials—written by Abgar to Tiberius Caesar and to neighboring potentates, endorsing Jesus and his healing powers; with a reply from Tiberius declaring that “Pilate has officially informed us of the miracles of Jesus.”. With respect to the other letters testimonial, it is recorded: “Abgar had not yet received answers to these letters when he died, having reigned thirty-eight years.” (Ibid. pp. 657-741, 706.) [1]

The “Little Liars of the Lord” were equal to the forgery of the signature of their God,—false letters in his name, as above cited from that exhaustless 101 mine of clerical falsities, the Catholic Encyclopedia, which again describes them, and proves that they ‘Were forged by their great Bishop of Caesaria: “The historian Eusebius records [HE. I, xii], a legend which he himself firmly believes concerning a correspondence that took place between Our Lord and the local potentate (Abgar) at Edessa. Three documents relate to this correspondence: (1) the Letter of Abgar to Our Lord; (2) Our Lord's answer; (3) a picture of Our Lord, painted from life. This legend enjoyed a great popularity, both in the East, and in the West, during the Middle Ages. Our Lord's Letter was copied on parchment, marble, and metal, and used as a talisman or an amulet.” (CE. i, 42.) But it is not true, as we have seen already confessed, that Eusebius innocently believed that these forgeries were genuine—for they were all shamelessly forged by Eusebius himself: “who vouches that he himself translated it from the Syriac documents in the archives of Edessa.” (CE. i, 610.) Again it is said by CE., that these forged letters, with the portrait, were “accepted by Eusebius without hesitation, and used by ?Addison in his work on Christian Evidences as genuine” (Ib. vi, 217). [2]

 

Needless to say, the bishop Eusebius of Caesarea is a very dishonest and dubious historian. The scholar Edward Gibbon says:

 

Edward Gibbon, speaking of Eusebius says: "The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related what might rebound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries" (Gibbon, Rome, vol. ii., Philadelphia, 1876).

Damning confessions by Christian scholars:

 

No other people in history have been such indefatigable and for the most part clumsy forgers as the Christians. Mosheim: "It was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by that means the interests of religion might be promoted." Dean Milman: "It was admitted and avowed that to deceive into Christianity was so valuable a service as to hallow deceit itself." Lecky: "the deliberate and apparently perfectly unscrupulous forgery of a whole literature....The Fathers laid down as a distinct proposition [sic] that pious frauds were justifiable and even laudable....it continued till the very sense of truth and the very love of truth seemed blotted out from the minds of men." Edersheim (a Christian Jew): "It will scarcely be credited how general the falsification of signatures and documents had become." Tyndall: "When arguments of proofs were needed...a document was discovered which met the case, and on which the name of an apostle or of some authoritative contemporary of the apostles was boldly inscribed. The end being held to justify the means, there is no lack of manufactured testimony." Origen himself proved that certain passages in Josephus, which represented him as having heard favorable things about Jesus, were forged interpolations. [1]

It doesn’t matter whether Eusebius of Caesarea wrote those words; he was a liar and deceiver.



Damning Confessions

"[Eusebius was] the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity." --- Jakob Burckhardt, Swiss historian (1818-1897)

"The famous passage which we find in Josephus, about Jesus Christ, was never mentioned nor alluded to in any way whatever by any of the fathers of the first, second, or third centuries; nor until the time of Eusebius, ‘when it was first quoted by himself.’ The truth is, none of these fathers could quote or allude to a passage which did not exist in their times; but was to all points short of absolute certainty, forged and interpolated by Eusebius." --- Mitchell Logan, Christian Mythology Unveiled (1842)

"The wretched Eusebius will have it that poems in hexameters are to be found even among them, and sets up a claim that the study of logic exists among the Hebrews, since he has heard among the Hellenes the word they use for logic."--- Flavius Claudius Julianus (360-363 CE) [1]

Here is what Eusebius of Caesarea said about Christianity

“The religion published by Jesus Christ to all nations is neither new nor strange…For though, without controversy we are of late, and the name of Christians is indeed new; yet our manner of life and the principles of our religion have not been lately devised by us, but were instituted and observed….from the beginning of the world, by good men, accepted by God; from those natural notions which are implanted in men’s minds”. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ)


The same confession by Augustine: 


That which is known as the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist, from the beginning of the human race until the time when Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed began to be called Christianity." (St. Augustine, Retractationes 1.12.3)


HE WROTE:

A further example of Smith’s dishonest use and distortion of sources is a citation taken from reformed Evangelical Trinitarian scholar Dr. James R. White to give the impression that this Christian apologist was denying that the Apostolic father Ignatius believed in the absolute, eternal Deity of Christ:

The professor James White of Grand Canyon University says:

Even if Ignatius had said that the Son was equal to the Father in eternity, power, position, and wisdom, it would still not be a Trinity, for nowhere did he say that the holy spirit was equal to God in those ways. But Ignatius did not say that the Son was equal to God the Father in such ways or in any other. Instead, he showed that the Son is in subjection to the One who is superior, Almighty God. (1) (Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun On the "Deity" of the Holy Spirit; source)

These are not the statements of Dr. White; rather they are the statements of an article produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Watchtower Bible and Tract Society which tried to undermine the witness which Ignatius’s writings provide for the Deity of the Lord Jesus being held by the very disciples of the Apostles of Christ.


RESPONSE:

 

The Church father Ignatius did not believe Jesus was God:

Having beheld your bishop, I know that he was not selected to undertake the ministry which pertains to the common [weal], either by himself or by men, or out of vainglory, but by the love of Jesus Christ, and of God the Father, who raised Him from the dead; at whose meekness I am struck with admiration, and who by His silence is able to accomplish more than they who talk a great deal. (Epistle to the Philadelphians [1]

If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice. The unbelieving bear the image of the prince of wickedness. The believing possess the image of their Prince, God the Father, and Jesus Christ, through whom, if we are not in readiness to die for the truth into His passion, His life is not in us. [2]

To the Church of God the Father AND of Jesus Christ the beloved, to her who hath by mercy obtained every gift, (*)

[But] shun divisions, as the beginning of evils. Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment. (*)

Crocus also, worthy both of God and you, whom we have received as the manifestation of your love to us, hath in all things refreshed me, and "hath not been ashamed of my chain," as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ will also refresh. (*)

Ignatius only called Jesus “God” and never “God the Father”, which separates him from God.

The Greek language does not have capital letters, so Ignatius never called Jesus “God”, he used the Greek word theos which simply means ‘god’. In the Septuagint, the Greek word theos is applied to human beings (Ex. 7:1, Ps. 82:6). Ignatius is calling Jesus “God” the same way David said “ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (Ps. 82:6). The Hebrew and Greek languages are figurative, the word “god” or “God” (theos) is not literal.

The Christian editors deceptively capitalize “god” and “lord” for Jesus.


Ye have done well in receiving Philo and Rheus Agathopus as servants of Christ our God (theos), who have followed me for the sake of God (theos) (Epistle to the Smyrnaens, [2]


The word “God” applied to Jesus is really “god” (theos) and the words “for the sake of GOD” refers to Yahweh, the Creator of the universe. There is no implication that Jesus is God, only a minor servant.  

He regarded Jesus as a “god” but certainly not “God the Father” (both words are theos).


As early as the eight century, the theologian St. John of Damascus frankly admitted what every modern critical scholar of the New Testament now realizes: that neither the doctrine of the Trinity nor that of the two natures of Jesus Christ is explicitly set out in scripture. In fact, if you take the record as it is and avoid reading back into it the dogmatic definitions of a later age, you cannot find what is traditionally regarded as orthodox Christianity in the Bible at all. The view of Jesus as at the same time fully man and fully God was unknown to Jesus himself, and came into being as a result of political forces, time-conditioned philosophies, cultural assumptions, and clashes between specific personalities. Nevertheless, it is true to say that already within the pages of the New Testament we can see at least two strands of reflection on the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus that made the evolution of the full-blown orthodoxy of the fourth and fifth centuries possible. (Tom Harper, For Christ’s Sake, p. 104)

In fact, very few preachers can give a reasonable account of either the doctrine of the Trinity of the doctrine of the Incarnation, that is, that Jesus was truly human and yet fully God. They repeat formulae that were worked out, with much quarrelling and bitterness, in the fourth and fifth centuries by men whose need, outlook, and the understanding of the universe were vastly different from our own. These formulae are no longer useful-instead, they raise an insurmountable barrier for many who might otherwise become disciples of Jesus in our day.


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 of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father. As a pious Jew, he would have been shocked and offended by such an idea.  


Over the last decade or so, I have talked as long and as frequently as possible about these particular doctrines with intelligent laypeople and clergy of all denominations, and I have found widespread confusion-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 tritheists. That is, they profess to believe in one God, but in reality they worship three. (1)


Ignatius called Jesus “God” no differently than Osiris, the Egyptian savior.

Osiris started out as an Egyptian God of Vegetation, Resurrection and the endless seasons. (Married to Isis). Osiris evolved to become a dominant God in the Egyptian religion. [2]

He was obviously influenced by the pagan myths of dying-rising gods, he called Jesus “God” the same way Osiris was called “God”. Moreover, he called Jesus “God” the same way the Romans called their Emperors “gods”.

The Romans observed this day as the birth day of the god of the sun, Natalis Solis Invicti ("Birthday of Sol the invincible"). There was great rejoicing and all shops were closed. There was illumination and public games. Presents were exchanged, and the slaves were indulged in great liberties. Remember, these are the same Romans who would later preside over the council of Nicea (325 C.E.) which lead to the official Christian recognition of the "Trinity" as the "true" nature of God, and the "fact" that Jesus  was born on the 25th of December too. The pagan emperor Constantine, who presided over the council of Nicea, was popularly considered the "embodiment" or "incarnation" of this supreme Roman "Sun" god. Neither was Constantine the first Roman emperor to be given this title, rather, many or his predecessors before him were also promoted to the status of the "incarnation" of the god of the sun. [2]


Ignatius addressed Jesus as the lower sun, the Father as the highest sun:


Examine carefully the sacrilegious beauties of your Lentuli and Hostii; now, is it the players or your gods who become the objects of your mirth in their tricks and jokes? Then, again, with what pleasure do you take up the literature of the stage, which describes all the foul conduct of the gods! Their majesty is defiled in your presence in some unchaste body. The mask of some deity, at your will, covers some infamous paltry head. The Sun mourns for the death of his son by a lightning-flash amid your rude rejoicing. (Tertullian of Carthage, Ad Nationes, (online Source)

The “Logos” doctrine is borrowed from Greek philosophy.

 

Christians see Jesus as an embodiment of the Logos, which is a Pagan concept not found in Judaism. Early Christian writings, including the New Testament, are full of the are rife with such Pagan concepts, which go unnoticed which go unnoticed because they are disguised by poor English translations of the original Greek. The language used by early Christianity is in fact so similar to that of the Mysteries that we often cannot tell from burial inscriptions whether the the deceased was a Christian or a Pagan! (Timothy Freke, The Jesus Mysteries, p. 85)

The Church father Ignatius was influenced by the Greek concept of Logos, he called Jesus the “Word” and “God”, yet these expressions are not Jewish.

 

Philo himself had been influenced by Plato’s Timaeus, in which he called the logos “the image of God” and “the second God”. Many Trinitarians today are emphatic in their insistence that John's gospel deliberately makes use of the term "logos" [1]


Here is the Passion of Osiris:


The Passion of Osiris was re-enacted at all of his temples during his annual festivals. On a stele at Abydos erected in the 12th Dynasty by I-Kher-Nefert, a priest of Osiris during the reign of Usertsen III (Pharaoh Sesostris, about 1875 BC) we find the principle scenes of the mystery-drama depicted (I-Kher-Nefert played Horus). In the first scene, Osiris is slain, no one knowing what happened to his body, and the onlookers weep and mourn, rend their hair and beat their breasts. Isis and Nepthys then recover the remnants and return to the temple. In the second scene, Thoth, Horus and Isis revive Osiris in the sanctuary, not witnessed by the populace. Then Osiris emerges, to much rejoicing. [2]


The resurrection of Jesus is a plagiarized myth:


Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, AND HAVING DIED, HE ROSE AGAIN, AND ASCENDED TO HEAVEN; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that the devil has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and traveled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, 'strong as a giant to run his race,' has been in like manner imitated? And when the devil brings forward Asclepius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? . . . And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah's words?  (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (online Source)

 

 


HE WROTE:

And here is what Dr. White says right after the above quote:

We must note the direct assertion that Ignatius "did not say that the Son was equal to God the Father" in eternity, power, position, or wisdom. As we examine the genuine Ignatian materials, we will see the importance of this claim. Following this paragraph, the Watchtower article goes on to provide three paragraphs of quotations from the longer version of the seven genuine Ignatian epistles, as well as from the pseudo-Ignatian epistles. *No citations are provided from the earliest, Greek versions of the genuine Ignatian writings.* These citations will be examined in their place.

It seems that the author is aware that he is leaving out a great deal of testimony to the deity of Christ, for he goes on to say,

True, Ignatius calls the Son "God the Word." But using the word "God" for the Son does not necessarily mean equality with Almighty God. The Bible also calls the Son "God" at Isaiah 9:6. John 1:18 calls the Son "the only-begotten god." Being vested with power and authority from Jehovah God, the Father, the Son could properly be termed a "mighty one," which is what "god" basically means.--Matthew 28:18, 1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:2.

We will examine, later, the validity of this claim with reference to Ignatius' use of the term "God." (Source)

…The attempt on the part of the Watchtower Society to deflect the description of Christ as "God" in various Biblical passages (Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1, 1:18) by saying that the basic meaning of "god" is "mighty one" is tremendously weak. First, Biblically speaking, the contexts in which Christ is called God make is painfully clear that the author is not simply saying that He is a "mighty one." But specifically in the context of Ignatius' writings, our writer does not even attempt to make a case that there is a basis for reading Ignatius' use of the term "God" with reference to Jesus Christ as nothing more than a description of Him as a "mighty one." A brief examination of the citations above reveals the following: In Ephesians 1, Ignatius speaks of "the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God." The divine will is predicated of Christ. In Romans 1 we see Ignatius speaking of "faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God." One does not have faith in "mighty ones," and the greatest commandment is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" (Mark 12:30). In the introduction of the letter to the Smyrneans, Ignatius gives *glory* "to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you." One does not give glory to a secondary "mighty one," and one does not speak of wisdom being bestowed by anyone but the true God. There is no question that Ignatius viewed the Son has having the very *fullness of Deity* that Paul ascribed to Him as well (Colossians 2:9)

 

RESPONSE:

 

There is absolutely no substance in what Shamoun has just quoted. The scholar James White is a Trinitarian pagan, upholding the pagan doctrines of Christianity. First, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are closer to Islam because they don’t believe Jesus is God, and they reject the trinity.

(1) http://www.watchtower.org/library/pr/article_04.htm 

(2) http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_04.htm 

(3) http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_03.htm


Regarding Isaiah 9:6 and John 1:1, we have already destroyed the Christian claims on these passages. Jesus never claimed to be God; he denied the concept of divinity. Jesus never heard of the term “God the Son” which later developed in the 4th century.

Jesus, the Son of Man, never addressed God as the “First Person of the Trinity”. 

 

The view of Jesus as at the same time fully man and fully God was unknown to Jesus himself, and came into being as a result of political forces, time-conditioned philosophies, cultural assumptions, and clashes between specific personalities. Nevertheless, it is true to say that already within the pages of the New Testament we can see at least two strands of reflection on the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus that made the evolution of the full-blown orthodoxy of the fourth and fifth centuries possible. (Tom Harper, For Christ’s Sake, p. 104)

“…This shift of emphasis from Jesus as a man to the new image of Christ, who was divine, enabled the intellectuals in Greece and Rome to assimilate into their own philosophy what Paul and those who followed him were preaching. Their view of existence was a tripartite one, and, with the Pauline Church’s talk of “God the Father” and the “Son of God”, it only needed the inclusion of the “Holy Ghost” to have a Trinity which matched theirs. With the passage of time, these two pictures merged into one, and the doctrine of Trinity was born. Not only the philosophical ideas prevalent in Greece at that time coloured the teaching, but also the very language of Greece itself influenced the expression of the teaching, trapping and limiting its meaning. Greek could contain the philosophy of the Greeks, but was neither vast nor supple enough to carry what Jesus had said. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p 70)

The doctrine of the Trinity was developed as a consequence of the deification of two creatures. Jesus Christ and the mysterious Holy Ghost, and their association with God as partners in His Godhead. As explained in Christian literature it amounts to the separate personification of three attributes of God. Whether considered from historical view point or otherwise, it is a regression from rational theology to mythology. For, at the root of all mythologies lies the irrational tendency of the human mind to deify great men and personify non-personal forces and attributes and to present them as Divine Persons. (Ulfat Aziz-us-Samad, Islam and Christianity, p. 33)


The evolution of Jesus’ divinity can be seen by comparing the Apostolic Creed to the Nicene Creed. The Apostolic Creed (97 CE) describes Jesus as a MAN, yet the Nicene Creed (325 CE) elevates Jesus to the position of God! 


 

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. 

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary… [1]

 


We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father… [2]

 


We have “God the Father”, “God the Son”, and “God the Holy Spirit”, which doesn’t make sense!  This explains why Jesus never called himself “God the Son”, his status changed over time. The Catholic Church developed the “God the Son” idea to justify the trinity.


The Christian Blasphemy

Christians believe Jesus was “God the Son” who descended to earth as “second person of the trinity”. Christians believe Mary gave birth to “Son of God” and “God the Son”. This pagan concept does not make sense, it brings forth vomit. Jesus was actually the Sun of God, and not “Son of God”, yet both of these titles are pagan, ascribed to Jesus after his departure. No wonder the early Christians were accused of sun worship. Jesus rejected the title ‘Son of God’ (Luke 4:41) and the Holy Quran rejects the sonship of Jesus, because it’s entirely pagan.

A letter ascribed in the Augustan History to the Emperor Hadrian refers to the worship of Serapis by residents of Egypt who described themselves as Christians, and Christian worship by those claiming to worship Serapis:

The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. (Augustan History, Firmus et al. 8) [1]

The pagan concept “Sun of God” was changed into “Son of God”.

“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.” Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

“The divine teacher is called, is tested by the “adversary”, gathers disciples, heals the sick, preaches the Good News about God’s kingdom, finally runs afoul of his bitter enemies, suffers, dies, and is resurrected after three days. This is the total pattern of the sun god in all the ancient dramas”. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 145)

In reading the New Testament we must cease to think of the man Jesus, and even of the “Son of God”, and think of him rather of the sun of god, for this is a solar myth, and its dying hero, a dying sun. (Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 361)

The sun is born on the 25th of December, the birthday of Jesus Christ. The first and greatest of the labors of Jesus Christ is his victory over the serpent, the evil principle, or the devil. In his first labor Hercules strangled the serpent, as did Krishna, Bacchus, etc. his is the sun triumphing over the powers of hell and darkness; and, as he increases, he prevails, till he is crucified in the heavens, or is decussated in the form of a cross (according to Justin Martyr) when he passes the equator at the vernal equinox. (ibid, p. 200)

The evidence that Christianity was in its beginnings firmly rooted in an Egyptian-style, equinoctial mode of thinking still abounds today. The birthday of Jesus Christ was first celebrated by the earliest Church in the spring of the year. But in 345, Pope Julius decreed that the birthday (nobody knew any precise date for it, suggesting again that the entire thing was pure myth) should thenceforth be held on December 25, three days after the “death” of the winter solstice and the same day on which the births of Mithras, Dionysus, the Sol Invictus (unconquerable sun), and several other gods were traditionally celebrated. Few Christians today realize that in the fifth century, Pope Leo the Great had to tell Church members to stop worshipping the sun. The first ostensibly Christian emperor, Constantine, who converted to the new faith at the beginning of the fourth century, was still worshipping the sun god Helios many years later, as coins and other evidence reveal. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 82)

Examine carefully the sacrilegious beauties of your Lentuli and Hostii; now, is it the players or your gods who become the objects of your mirth in their tricks and jokes? Then, again, with what pleasure do you take up the literature of the stage, which describes all the foul conduct of the gods! Their majesty is defiled in your presence in some unchaste body. The mask of some deity, at your will, covers some infamous paltry head. The Sun (God) mourns for the death of his son (Jesus) by a lightning-flash amid your rude rejoicing. (Tertullian of Carthage, Ad Nationes, (online Source)

Now, we have “God the Son”, and the Church only needed the Holy Ghost to complete the trinity:

Their view of existence was a tripartite one, and, with the Pauline Church’s talk of “God the Father” and the “Son of God”, it only needed the inclusion of the “Holy Ghost” to have a Trinity which matched theirs. With the passage of time, these two pictures merged into one, and the doctrine of Trinity was born. (Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 70)

In reality, the “God the Son” nonsense did not exist prior to the 4th century.

The Athanasian Creed distorted the picture of Jesus by describing him as “half man – half God”.


1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal… [3]

 

In contrast, the Gospels record Jesus saying:

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. (John 5:30)

Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing." (John 9:32-33)

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. (John 8:28)


THE FORGED ATHANASIAN CREED

In likewise the celebrated Athanasian Creed of the Church, attributed to St. Athanasius and so held by the Church “until the seventeenth century” (CE. ii, 34), with most evil results, is now an admitted forgery. In words of Gibbon: “St. Athanasius is not the author of the creed; it does not appear to have existed within a century after his death; it was composed in Latin, therefore in one of the Western provinces. Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople, was so much amazed by this extraordinary composition, that he frankly pronounced it to be the work of a drunken man.” (Petav. Dogmat. Theologica, tom. ii, 1, vii, c. 8, p. 687; Gibbon, p. 598.) [1]


There’s no need to expose the falsehood of the word “begotten”, we shall destroy it separately.


No priest worth his cloth would fail to quote "the only BEGOTTEN of the Father!" when preaching to a prospective convert. But this fabrication — "BEGOTTEN" — has now been unceremoniously excised by the Bible Revisers, without a word of excuse. They are as silent as church-mice and would not draw the reader's attention to their furtive excision. This blasphemous word "BEGOTTEN" was another of the many such interpolations in the "Holy Bible." God Almighty condemned this blasphemy in the strongest terms soon after its innovation. He did not wait for 2000 years for Bible scholars to reveal the fraud. (Ahmed Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word? p. 15)  



Continue to Part 3