Mankind's Corruption of the bible - 3

Proof that the "The son of God" is a fabrication of mankind

In the previous articles, it was proven through the words of the Bible and some of history's most knowledgeable *CHRISTIAN* scholars that the Bible has been the object of the tampering fingers of mankind for many centuries now. Many examples were given and many Christian scholars were quoted in this regard.

In the previous articles, many prophesies of Mohammed (pbuh) were presented, many examples of the tampering fingers of mankind were displayed, detailed proof of the corruption of the Torah of the Jews was shown, and many other topics were discussed. In the last article it was demonstrated how the myth of the "Trinity" is a fabrication and is nowhere to be found in the Bible. It was further demonstrated through the words of eminent Christian scholars how many attempts at forging false verses were attempted by the church and were inserted into the Bible in order to validate their doctrine. It was shown through their own words how they now recognize these facts and are starting to make an honest attempt to purify the Bible from these insertions and forgeries and return to the original words of Jesus (pbuh).

Now that the "Trinity" has been proven to be the forgery it is, it is now necessary to display how the rest of the fabricated beliefs will fall apart one by one through the "domino syndrome" mentioned in the previous article. Many people have over the centuries recognized part of this truth, however, the majority of them have usually been unable to take their findings all the way to the complete truth.

Many people know the historical details of how the "Trinity" was first concocted and inserted into the Bible, so they refuse to believe in it. However, they do not realize *WHY* the "Trinity" needed to be concocted in the first place. Once a person begins to study the reasons behind the fabrication of the "Trinity" they will come to realize that the "Trinity" is only the final block placed in the elaborate structure the Trinitarians had built up around the original message of Jesus (pbuh). The "Trinity" is actually the final piece of duct-tape used by the followers of Paul to hold their concoction together. In the previous article we had exposed this concoction for the fabrication it is (By Allah's will, the actual historical details will be displayed in upcoming articles). In effect, we knocked over the first domino. Let us see how far this string of dominos will now stretch.

The "son of God":

"And unto Him belongs whosoever is in the heavens and the earth and those who dwell in His presence do not scorn to worship Him nor do they weary. They glorify Him night and day; They flag not. Or have they chosen gods from the earth who raise the dead. If there were therein gods besides Allah then verily both (the heavens and the earth) would have gone to ruin. Glorified be Allah, the lord of the throne from all they ascribe (unto Him). He is not questioned as to that which He does, but they will be questioned. Or have they chosen other gods besides Him, say: Bring your proof (of their godhead), this is the reminder of those with me and those before me, but most of them know not the truth so they are averse (to it). And we sent no messenger before you but we inspired him (saying): There is no god save Me (Allah) so worship Me. And they say: The Beneficent has taken unto himself a son. Nay! but (they) are but honored servants. They speak not until He has spoken and they obey His command. He knows what is before them and what is behind them and they cannot intercede except for those whom He accepts and they quake for awe of Him. And whosoever among them says: I am a god other than Allah, the same shall We reward with hell. Thus do We reward the wrong doers".

The Qur'an, Al-Anbia(21):19-29

"And the angles said 'O Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him,

his name is Messiah, Jesus son of Mary,

High honored in this world and the next, of those near stationed to Allah".

The Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):40.

Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") do not differ with Christians in the fact that Jesus (pbuh) was indeed born miraculously without a human father. Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") only differ with Christians in the Christian's claim that Jesus (pbuh) must have a father. If he has no human father then his father must be God. Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") believe that he had no father whatsoever, and this was the essence of his miraculous birth.

"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam, he created

him from dust, then said to him: 'Be' and he was"

The Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):59.

"They say: Allah has taken a son. Glorified be He! He has no needs!.

His is all that is in the heavens and that is in the earth.

You have no warrant for this, do you say regarding Allah that which you know not?."

The Qur'an, Yunus(10):68

"The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him.

And his mother was a saintly woman. They both used to eat (earthly) food.

See how we make the signs clear for them, then see how they are deluded!"

The Qur'an, Al-Maidah (5):75.

"And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God,

and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent". The Bible, John 17:3.

Notice the above words of the Bibles: "YOU the only true God". Most Christians always manage to see a hidden abstract meaning for the verses of the Bible. Even when they read the above verse they always manage to understand something totally different than that which they are reading. They always interpret the word "you" to be "we", and thus, understand the above verse to say "WE the only true god". Jesus (pbuh) is obviously talking to a distinctly different entity than himself and telling that entity that He ALONE is the only true God. Is Jesus (pbuh) incapable of saying "I the only true God" or "We the only true God" if that is what he meant?. Can we see the difference?.

Many Christians like to tell Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") about how Jesus (pbuh) was "begotten" by God. Let us start out be first quoting the West's own unbiased Websters dictionary as to what is "implied" by the word

"begotten": "To procreate as the father, sire, to produce as an effect or an outgrowth". Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") feel such claims with regard to God almighty are an abomination.

Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") are not the only ones who believe that Jesus (pbuh) is mortal and not a god. The Jews also believe this, in addition to *THE VERY FIRST* groups of Christianity such as the Ebonites, the Cerinthians, the Basilidians, the Capocratians, and the Hypisistarians. The Arians, Paulicians and Goths also accepted Jesus (pbuh) as a prophet of God. Even in the modern age there are churches in Asia, in Africa, the Unitarian church, the Jehovah's witnesses, and even the majority of today's Anglican Bishops do not worship Jesus (pbuh) as God.

The Church, as Heinz Zahrnt put it "put words into the mouth of Jesus which he never spoke and attributed actions to him which he never performed".

One of those who has shown that most of what the church says about Jesus is baseless is Rudolph Augustein in his book "Jesus the Son of Man". Another very comprehensive study of this

matter can be found in the book "The myth of God incarnate" which was written by seven theologian scholars in England in 1977 and edited by John Hick. Their conclusion in this matter is that Jesus was

"a man approved by God, for a special role within the divine purpose, and..... the later conception of him as God incarnate ... is a mythological or poetic way of expressing his significance for us".

See also John Mackinnon Robertson's "Christianity and Mythology" T.W Doane's "The Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions" (A good summary of these studies is available in M.F. Ansarei, "Islam and Christianity in the Modern World" ).

A University of Richmond professor, Dr. Robert Alley, after considerable research into newly found ancient documents concludes that "....The (Biblical) passages where Jesus talks about the Son of

God are later additions.... what the church said about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have been consistent with his entire lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the first three decades after Jesus' death Christianity continued as a sect within Judaism. The first three decades of the existence of the church were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they (the followers) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus".

"Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else" Deuteronomy 4:39.

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is

none else" Isaiah 45:18.

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior" Isaiah 43:10-11.

If there was no god formed before or after God almighty, then how was Jesus (pbuh) "begotten" as a god?. The answer is: He was not. He was a mortal man, not a god.

How many "Sons" does God have?

Many people will now complain "but the Bible clearly says that Jesus is the Son of God". Well then, how many sons does God almighty have?. The Bible tells us that Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22.

Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14.

Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim ismy firstborn." Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn?. Israel or Ephraim?).

Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38.

Even common people are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14.

Well then, is Jesus the only begotten son of God?. Read Psalms 2:7 "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (David the king), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee". When the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus (pbuh) he defended himself with the words of John 10:34: "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken...." referring to

Psalms 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.". As we can see from these and many other verses like them, "Son of God" in the language of the Jews was a very innocent term used to describe a loyal servant of God.

Grolier's encyclopedia, under the heading "Jesus Christ", says:

"During his earthly life Jesus was addressed as rabbi and was regarded as a prophet. Some of his words, too, place him in the category of sage. A title of respect for a rabbi would be "my Lord." Already before Easter his followers, impressed by his authority, would mean something more than usual when they addressed him as "my Lord."....... it is unlikely that the title "Son of David" was ascribed to him or accepted by him during his earthly ministry. "Son of God," in former times a title of the Hebrew kings (Psalms 2:7), was first adopted in the post-Easter church as an equivalent of Messiah and had no metaphysical connotations (Romans 1:4). Jesus was conscious of a unique filial relationship with God, but it is uncertain whether the Father/Son language (Mark 18:32; Matt. 11:25-27 par.; John passim) goes back to Jesus himself" .

There seems to be only two places in the Bible where Jesus (pbuh) refers to himself as "son of God". They are in John chapter 5 and 11. Hastings in "The dictionary of the Bible" says:

"Whether Jesus used it of himself is doubtful".

Regardless, we have already seen what is meant by this innocent title. However, Jesus is referred to as the "son of Man" (literally: "Human being") 81 times in the books of the Bible. Do Christians emphasize this aspect of Jesus?. The New Testament Greek word used for "son" are "pias" and "paida" which mean "servant", or "son in the sense of servant". These are translated to "son" in reference to Jesus and "servant" in reference to others in some translations of the Bible.

Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") are told that Jesus (pbuh) was a human being, not a god. They are told that Jesus (pbuh) continually emphasized this to his followers throughout his mission. The Gospel of Barnabas also

affirms this fact. Once again, Grolier's encyclopedia says:

"...Most problematical of all is the title "Son of Man." This is the only title used repeatedly by Jesus as a self-designation, and there is no clear evidence that it was used as a title of majesty by the post-Easter church. Hence it is held by many to be authentic, since it passes the criterion of dissimilarity" (emphasis added).

Is Jesus (pbuh) a divine son of God because God is his "father"?. Let us read Matthew 5:45

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven..." and

Matthew 5:48:"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." ...etc. There are countless verses in the Bible to this effect. To understand what is meant by the reference to "father" we need only read

John 8:42: "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me".

So the love of God and His prophets is what makes God someone's "father". Similarly,

John 8:44: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do".

Obviously neither the Devil nor God is the physical father of any of them.


Well then, is Jesus the son of God because he raised the dead?. If so, then what about Ezekiel who raised many more dead bodies than Jesus ever did. Ezekiel raised a whole city from the dead (Ezekiel 37:1-9)

If we are looking for Godly powers and miracles as proof of godliness then what about Joshua who stopped the sun and moon for one whole day: (Joshua 10:12-13). Can anyone but God almighty do this?.

Elisha raised the dead, resurrected himself, healed a leper, fed a hundred people with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn, and healed a blind man: 2 Kings 4:35, 13:21, 5:14, 4:44, and 6:11.

Elijah raised the dead, and made a bowl of flour and a jar of oil To say nothing of Moses (pbuh) and his countless miracles. Of his parting of the sea, of his changing of a stick into a serpent, of his

changing of water into blood, ..etc.

And on and on......

Even Jesus (pbuh) himself tells us that miracles by themselves do not prove anything: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect" Matthew 24:24. So even false Christs can supply great wonders and miracles of such magnitude that even the most knowledgeable among men shall be deceived.

Jesus (pbuh) had a beginning (in the stable) and an end ("and he gave up the ghost") Melchizedec, however, had no beginning of days nor end of life. Hebrews 7:3.

Solomon was with God at the beginning of time before all of creation, Proverbs 8:22-31.

What is the sign of "Godliness"?

Well then was Jesus (pbuh) the son of God because he was filled with the Holy Ghost?. Let us read Luke 1:67 "Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost".

Also, Luke 1:41 "Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost".

And, Acts 4:8 "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost said".

Also Acts 13:9 "Then Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.".

How about Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak".

We could go on and on.

Is Jesus(pbuh) a god because he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb?. If this is the case then John the Baptist should be a god also, as claimed in Luke 1:13-15.

Well then, is Jesus (pbuh) god because he performed his miracles under his own power while others needed God to perform them for them?. Let us then read:

Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is *GIVEN* unto me in heaven and in earth".

Luke 11:20: "But if I *WITH THE FINGER OF GOD* cast out devils".

Matthew 12:28 "But if I cast out devils *BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD*".

John 5:30: "I can of mine own self do *NOTHING*: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me".

John 10:25: "the works that I do *IN MY FATHER'S NAME*".

John 8:28-29 "...I do *NOTHING* of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him".

Some will now say: But in 2 Corinthians 4:4 we read "....Christ, who is the image of God". Surely this makes Jesus God. Well then, why not read Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them".

In John 8:23 we read "And he (Jesus) said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world".

Does this make Jesus (pbuh) a god ?. No!. Why not read John 17:14

"I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world"

and John 17:16 "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world".

There are many other examples.

Now, do gods pray?. Let us read Mark 14:32

"and he (Jesus) saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray".

Also, Luke 3:21: "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also

being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened".

And, Luke 6:12: "And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God".

Further, Luke 22:44 "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was

as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground".

Matthew 26:39: "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt".

These verses do not speak of Jesus (pbuh) interceding, or consorting, or consulting, but PRAYING. Jesus (pbuh) and his disciples are continuously being described in the Bible as "falling on their faces and praying" which is exactly the way Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") pray today. They pray the way Jesus (pbuh) did. Have you ever seen a Christian "fall on his face" and pray as Jesus, Muhammad (pbut), and all Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") do?.

Mr. Tom Harpur says:

"In fact, unless we are prepared to believe that his prayer-dependence on God was nothing more than a sham for our edification, a mere act to set us a good example, it is impossible to cling to the orthodox teaching that Jesus was really God Himself walking about in human form, the Second Person of the Trinity. The concept of God praying - let alone praying to Himself - is incomprehensible to me. To say that it was simply the human side of Jesus talking to God the Father (rather than his own divine nature as Son of God) is to posit a kind of schizophrenia that is incompatible with any belief in Jesus' full humanity" For Christ's Sake, pp. 42-43.

All of mankind are the servants of God. If a man were to own another man then that man would be his servant. Obviously this servant would be held in a lower regard than this man's own children. We do not usually find people telling their sons: "come here my servant", or "Go over there my servant". Let us compare this with what God has to say about Jesus (pbuh):

Matthew 12:18: "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen".

Further, in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Acts 3:13 reads: "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac,.... hath glorified his servant Jesus". and Acts 4:27(RSV): "For of a truth against thy holy

servant Jesus, whom thou hast anointed...". The Actual Greek word used is "pais" or "paida" which mean; "servant, child, son, manservant". Some translations of the Bible have translated this word

as "son" when it is attributed to Jesus (pbuh) and "servant" for most everyone else (such as the King James Version), while more recent translations of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version

(compiled from the "most" ancient manuscripts) now honestly translate it as "servant".

The exact same word "pias" is attributed to Jacob(Israel) in Luke 1:54 and translated as "servant": "He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;". It is also applied to David the king in Luke 1:69, and once again, it is translated as "servant": "....the house of his servant David;" (also see Acts 4:25). However, when it is applied to Jesus (e.g. Acts 3:13), NOW it is translated as "SON".

This fact is further emphasized by Jesus (pbuh) in John 20:17: "Jesus saith unto her, ....I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". Not only is God Jesus' father, but He is also his GOD. Think about this carefully. Also notice how Jesus is equating between himself and mankind in these matters and not between himself and God. He is making it as clear as he possibly can that he is one of US and not a god.

Okay, If Jesus and God are two distinct gods and one is greater than the other ("my Father is greater than I" John 14:28) then this contradicts such verses as Isaiah 43:10-11 and the very definition of

the "trinity" (see part 11 of this series) which includes the words: "..Co-equality.." in it's definition (see part 11).

However, if they are not two separate gods, but ONE god, as claimed by the Christians and Mr. J, then is Jesus (pbuh) praying to himself?. Is, for instance, his mind praying to his soul?.

Matthew 11:11 "Verily I (Jesus) say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist". Not even Jesus?. Jesus (pbuh) was born of a woman.

Job 25:4: "How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?". Once again, Jesus (pbuh) was born of a woman. Shall we now apply this to him?. Not as far as Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") are concerned.

Luke 2:52 says: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature.......".

and Hebrews 5:8 "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered".

If Jesus is God, then did God start out as an ignorant and savage god and then become a learned (wisdom) and prestigious (stature) god?. Does God have to learn?. Does God start out savage and increase in stature ?. Does God need to learn obedience to God?. If there is only one God in existence, and God is a "Trinity" with three faces: God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost (required by Isaiah 43:10-11), then is Jesus (pbuh) learning obedience to another side of his own personality?.

But Christians will insist that it is necessary for Jesus (pbuh) to be the son of God and to die on the cross as an ultimate sacrifice in atonement for the original sin, otherwise they are all destined for hell.

As Paul taught them "without shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22. Let us study Paul's claim:

If the sin of one man can make all mankind sinners as claimed in Romans 5:12, then:

1) This requires that all babies are sinners from birth and are only saved if they later "accept the sacrifice of their Lord and are baptized". All others remain stained and destined for hell. Till recently, unbaptized infants were not buried in consecrated ground because they were believed to have died on the original sin. Saint Augustine himself is quoted as saying "No one is clean, not even if his life be only for a day" (A dictionary of Biblical tradition in English literature, p.577).

This, however, contradicts Matthew 19:14 "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven". (see also Mark 10:14, and Luke18:16). So Jesus (pbuh) himself is telling us that children are born without sin and are

destined for heaven without qualification. In other words, no one is born stained with an initial sin. Once again, the teachings of Islam.

2) All the millennia of previous prophets (Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Noah, ...etc.) and their people are all condemned to eternal Hellfire simply because Jesus, the alleged "son of God", was not born yet. In other words, they have sin forced upon them (by Adam, 1 Corinthians 15:22) and the chance for redemption withheld from them (By Jesus' late arrival after their death, Galatians 2:16). In Romans 5:14, Paul says "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come".

Romans 4:2: "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath reason to boast; but not before God".

Did Abraham or any of the other prophets ever preach the "crucifixion"?. Did they preach the "Trinity"?. We are asking for clear and decisive words and not personal forced interpretations of their words or "hidden meanings" for their words. If you are not sure then why not ask the Jews who we are told faultlessly transmitted two thirds of the Bible to us?. Many people do not bother to think about this. As long as they are going to heaven, what does it matter what happens to others?.

3) What right did the prophets of God have to deceive their people and tell them that they would enter into heaven if they but kept the commandments. What right did they have to teach them all of these

commandments and the observance of the Sabbath and other hardships if the only way into heaven was the acceptance of a sacrifice that would not occur till many hundreds of years after their death, or as Paul put it "a man is not justified by the works of the law........... for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.". Galatians 2:16.

4) Explain Ezekiel 18:19-20 "Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.".

This verse was revealed long before the birth of Paul and his claims of "initial sin" and "redemption". It clearly states that all mankind is not held accountable by God almighty for the sin of Adam.

Also read Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.".

And Jeremiah 31:29-30: "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge".

And Ezekiel 18:1-9: "The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?. As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God"

5) Isaiah 43:11 "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior". How is Jesus the savior if God Himself denies this?. Remember, we have already discarded the doctrine of "trinity". Even Jesus himself says: "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" Matthew 9:13.

Also read Isaiah 46:9: "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me", Deuteronomy 4:35: "the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him",

Deuteronomy 32:39: "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me",

1 Kings 8:60: "That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else", Isaiah 44:8: "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any",

Isaiah 45:5: "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me", Isaiah 45:21: "and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me", Isaiah 45:22: "I am God, and there is none else".

6) "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him". John 14:23.

"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love". John 15:10.

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments". Matthew 19:16-17.

Jesus (pbuh) refutes that he is even "good". This is a characteristic of a MAN. When you complement a man, and this man is humble, he will say: "why are you complementing me?. I am not so good, I am just a humble man.". This is how good and decent men speak. However, if Jesus (pbuh) is God then he must claim to be good. This is because God is ultimate good. If God claims not to be good then he will be a hypocrite and a liar which is impossible.

Paul, a disciple of Jesus' disciple Barnabas, is quoted to have said that the law of Moses is worthless. Belief in the crucifixion is the only requirement "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" Galatians 2:16. Also: "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" Hebrews 8:13.

As well as Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned". Romans 3:28: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law".

Jesus (pbuh), however, tells us that "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven". Matthew 5:18-19.

Even James 2:14,20 emphasizes that: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?...............But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?". It comes down to this: Who's words carry more weight with us, Jesus or Paul?.

Jesus (pbuh) himself never said "Believe in my sacrifice on the cross and you will be saved". He didn't tell this young man "You are filthy wicked and sinful and can never enter heaven except through my redeeming blood and your belief in my sacrifice". He simply said repeatedly "keep the commandments" and nothing more. If Jesus (pbuh) was being prepared and conditioned for this sacrifice from the beginning of time, then why did he not mention it to this man?. Even when this man pressed him for more, Jesus only told him that to be "PERFECT" he only needs to sell his belongings. He made no mention whatsoever of his crucifixion, an initial sin, or a redemption.

Would this not be quite sadistic of Jesus (pbuh) if Paul's claims are true "for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified"?.

If Jesus (pbuh) whole mission in life was to die on the cross in atonement for the "sin of Adam", and if this was the founding reason why he was sent, would we not be justified in expecting him to spend

night and day drumming this into the minds of his followers?. Should we not expect him to speak of nothing else?. Should we not expect him to spend night and day preaching that the commandments shall soon be thrown out the window (Galatians 3:13) and faith in his upcoming crucifixion shall be the only thing required of them?(Romans 3:28). Should we not expect him to echo the teachings

of Paul who claims Jesus (pbuh) was preaching these things to him in "visions"?. Should we not expect Jesus (pbuh) to tell everyone he meets "The commandments are worthless. I shall be dying on the cross soon. Believe in my sacrifice and you shall be saved"?. Is this not dictated by plain logic?.

Notice how Paul claims that "NO" flesh shall be justified by the works of the law. "NO" means "None". Paul makes no exceptions whatsoever here. What this means is that even the young man who Jesus told to "keep the commandments" and to sell his belongings can not be justified by simply following these commands of Jesus (pbuh). Did Jesus (pbuh) then forget to remind this young man that he can not be justified by following his command, keeping the commandments, and selling his belongings?. Also remember our comments about the prophets of God. Are they all going to hell?.

Does any Christian today place the same emphasis on the commandments the their "Lord" Jesus (pbuh) that the Bible states he did, and died doing?. No!. Christianity has now been "spiritualized"

by Paul, and the path to heaven is now through a single trivial belief that Jesus (pbuh) himself never even mentioned, while the commands of Jesus have now been totally ignored.

7) If a man were to steal from my home in New York city, and the police were to capture him. If I were to then say: "I am a very jealous man!. I want you to not only place this man in jail, but all of his kinfolk in Ohio, Kansas, California, and China are to be placed in jail with him. I want the child which is in his pregnant wife's womb to also be condemned to life imprisonment as well as all his future generation till the end of time, which are all to live and die in jail".

Would this be called heavenly justice?. Should I then be called the most just man on earth?. When Paul alleges that God holds all of humanity responsible for the single sin of one man (Romans 5:12), is this justice?. Is this our perception of God?.

Continuing our example, if I were to come after about forty years -after many of these people had already died in prison- and were to claim that I was now ready to be merciful but that I could not simply forgive and forget but must take my five year old sinless child and have someone whip him, kick him, spit on him, humiliate him, and then kill him in the most gruesome, humiliating, and drawn-out way I know how in front of many people and only when he was in heaven could I forgive them, would this be the ultimate show of mercy?. Think about these allegation which are presented against God almighty by Paul.

8) Jesus (pbuh) contradicts Paul, the inventor of the notions of initial sin and redemption, by telling us that in order to be "Perfect" a man need only "keep the commandments (of Moses)" and "sell all that thou hast and give to the poor" (Matthew 19:16-21). Having done this Jesus (pbuh) would consider a man "PERFECT". Now the question arises: If I am "perfect" then what does my faith yet lack?. Answer: Nothing!. There is no need for the belief in the initial sin or the crucifixion. This is exactly the teachings of the apostle Barnabas (the teacher and benefactor of Paul, who Paul later looked down upon) in his Gospel as well as the teachings of the Muslim's Qur'an.

9) In every religion of mankind there are believers and sinners. Each religion also has guidelines for the transition from the domain of a sinner to the domain of the believer. For instance, in Judaism, the

guideline for this transition is the commandments of Moses (pbuh). Any Jew found respecting these commandments is regarded by them a believer. Similarly, Paul alleges that the guideline for this transition is the "faith of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 2:16). What does Paul mean by this?.

*He obviously does not mean the belief in the trinity since, as we have already seen (see part 11), the trinity was not invented by his church until long after his death and is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

*He also does not mean by the "faith of Jesus Christ" the faith that Jesus (pbuh), according to the Bible, practiced and taught his followers to practice, which is the law of Moses (pbuh) since in this same verse he casually sweeps the law of Moses and Jesus (pbut) under the carpet with the words: "a man is not justified by the works of the law".

*Does Paul then mean by the words the "faith of Jesus Christ" the belief in his miracles, his true prophethood, and his piety and sinless nature?. No!. Because this definition would make Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") Christians too!. Does any Christian claim that Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") are devout Christians and deserving of salvation?. No!.

*What then does Paul mean?. What he means is what his Church has been preaching for close to two thousand years now: To believe that a sinless Jesus died on the cross in atonement for the initial sin Adam which we have all inherited. In other words, if you have "faith" in the "initial sin" and the "atonement" then you will be "saved". YOU NEED NOTHING ELSE!. But Jesus (pbuh) himself did not believe this. This can be clearly demonstrated by reading Matthew 9:13 where Jesus said: "But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance".

The Jews were admonishing Jesus (pbuh) for eating with sinners. Jesus' (pbuh) reply clearly divided his people into "sinners" and "righteous" people. The righteous are clearly free from the initial

sin. Jesus (pbuh) was not calling them because they had already been saved. He was only calling the "sinners". But Jesus had not been crucified yet!. He also never mentioned either a crucifixion or an

atonement to them. So these people are described by Jesus (pbuh) himself as righteous without their having believed in the initial sin or the atonement!. This observation is further reinforced by reading

Matthew 19:16-21. Did Jesus (pbuh) intend to teach his followers one thing during his lifetime and then come back in "visions" to Paul and teach them to totally disregard everything he had taught them after his death?. Not according to him. Jesus (pbuh) said: Matthew 23:1-3, Matthew 5:17-19:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Also notice Jesus' words "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice".

10) Paul himself is not even sure WHO is responsible for the "initial sin" he invented and claims we have inherited. He tells us in Romans that Adam ALONE was responsible: Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

and also 1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive". However, in 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul tells us something completely different. He claims that Adam was NOT deceived (he was not the transgressor), rather, Eve alone was deceived and was the transgressor: "And Adam was NOT deceived, but the woman (Eve) being deceived was in the transgression". Unless we are willing to continually keep coming up with new "abstract" and "hidden" meanings for practically every single verse of the Bible, then it becomes quite clear to an unbiased mind that Paul was making these things up as he went along (see part 9 of this series).

11) In the Qur'an we are told that Adam (pbuh) did indeed repent

"And Adam received from his Lord words (teaching him how to repent)

and He relented toward him. Lo! He is the Relenting the Merciful" Al-Bakarah(2):37.

So Adam (pbuh) received a revelation from God showing him how to repent and he did so. God almighty did not mandate a gruesome and torturous death for "His only begotten son" or anything else. He simply accepted Adam's repentance and relented. This is true mercy.

Christians are taught that to enter heaven they only need to believe in the single fact that Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross for their sins and become baptized. (However you define "baptized") Gods

commandments are considered worthless (Romans 3:28). Christians are not ignorant people. However, they have all been taught to have two different standards of logic. One for the Bible and one for everything else. They would consider any similar claim from anyone else preposterous. If they were told that the United States Government was passing out free mansions, checks for 100 Million dollars and a guaranteed "good life" to all comers if they would only believe that previous Americans died to give them their freedom, then the person making this claim would be labeled a crazy man.

It is amazing how people allow others to tell them what is and isn't a genuine Gospel without asking for any proof whatsoever. The Gospel of Barnabas was discovered hidden away in the Christian's own

Vatican (see previous articles). It started out in the first centuries AD as an "authentic" and "canonical" Gospel. However, over a period of a few centuries, all of the Gospels which were considered authentic by the very first Christians were slowly recognized by the enlightened church of Paul as "apocryphal" and destroyed. Similarly, the Gospels which were considered fabrications by the very first Christians were slowly adopted by these later people as authentic and canonical (see

previous articles, and historical details to come, by Allah's will). The Popes themselves new of it's existence but were hiding it. To this day it has never left the hands of the Christians. It remains in the Christian Hofbibliothek in Vienna for all to see. Never has it fallen into the hands of Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more").

1) Why then does it confirm practically every single one of the claims of the Qur'an?.

2) Why does it confirm that Jesus (pbuh) is not God nor his son, as the Qur'an does?.

3) Why does it prophesies that mankind will call Jesus (pbuh) the "Son of God" and severely caution them from doing so, as the Qur'an says?.

4) Why does it confirm that Jesus (pbuh) was not killed by the Jews but raised by God, as the Qur'an says?.

5) Why does it prophesies the coming of a new prophet after Jesus (pbuh)?. Why does it claim that the coming prophet will come from the descendants of Ishmael(the Arabs) and not Isaac(the Jews)?.

6) Why does it claim that the Jews had been changing their book from ancient times, as the Qur'an says?.

7) Why does it have the apostle Barnabas himself claiming that Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) had corrupted the religion of Jesus (pbuh) by nullifying the commandments, and by calling Jesus (pbuh) the "son of God", and that he (Paul) was leading the masses astray from the true religion of God?.

Why does it confirm virtually every single claim of the Qur'an even though it was written long before the coming of Muhammad (pbuh) and has remained in the possession of the Church since?. Is it all just an amazing coincidence?. Why has the Vatican gone to such lengths to hide it over the centuries?. The Gospel of Barnabas is not the only Gospel which confirms these matters. There is also "The Shepherd of Hermas". In 1922, a third century papyrus manuscript of "The Shepherd" surfaced (Mohammed, pbuh, was born in the SEVENTH century), and once again it confirmed the teachings of the Qur'an, and once again, this Gospel was destroyed and hidden from the masses.

During the first centuries AD., both of these books were considered authentic and canonical and preached as the true word of God.

Christian scholars call the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the "Synoptic" (One eyed) Gospels. This is because they all seem to have had access to a common source document they were working from when they wrote their Gospels (unlike the "Gospel of John" which exhibits completely different characteristics from theses three). This source document is called 'Q'. Now they are beginning to recognize that the alleged authors are not the true authors (see previous articles). Similarly, countless verses of the Gospel of John, as well as other historical discrepancies, also go to show that John did not write the Gospel of John. Some scholars are now beginning to suspect that 'Q' may indeed be the Gospel of Barnabas. It is much larger than the others, by all measures it is an authentic Gospel, and it contains all of the stories contained in these three Gospels without the contradictions found therein.

Our "domino syndrome" has now toppled a grand total of two fundamental concepts of worship in the current "Christian" faith. We continue to work our way back through all of the fabrications foisted upon Jesus (pbuh) and his message in our search for his original message. To summarize:

1) In part 11, the "Trinity" was exposed as a fabrication of mankind with no validation in the Bible whatsoever. It was shown how the majority of today's most eminent Christian scholars recognize the fact that verses were casually inserted into the Bible over the centuries to validate a given doctrine.

2) If the "trinity" is a fabrication then Jesus (pbuh) can not possibly be the son of God, since this would require him to be a SEPARATE god than God. This means that there must be at least TWO gods in existence, however, we have seen that the Bible contains verses after

verse after verses which all continue to beat us over the head in no uncertain language that there is only *ONE* god in existence. Which is why the "Trinity" had to be fabricated in the first place.

Stay tuned for more in upcoming articles by Allah's will. We will by His will continue to allow the "domino Syndrome" to work it's way through the rest of the blocks and we will see where it stops. We will then compare the end result with Islam and see whether there are any similarities at all between them.

See you then (inshallah).

Misheal Al-Kadhi

Proof that "The initial sin" and "Atonement" concepts are fabrications of mankind

In the last three posts, the "domino syndrome" was set in motion. It was demonstrated through the words of eminent Christian scholars and the Bible only, how the "Trinity" was a fabrication of mankind inserted into Christian faith many centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). It was demonstrated how the "Trinity" can not be verified through the Bible and how there is not a single verse in the whole Bible verifying this fabrication. This was the first domino. Building upon this, it was demonstrated how the concept of "the son of God" was also a fabrication of mankind and how the Bible explicitly refutes this fabrication in many places. This was the second domino. However, were there really only two "dominos" toppled in the last two articles?

If you look closely, you will see that there were actually FOUR dominos toppled in the past articles. The first was the "trinity" which was exposed as a fabrication with no validation in the Bible. The

second was the myth of the "son of God" which was exposed through the fact that the existence of a "son of God" would require the existence of at least TWO gods. However, verse after verse after verse of the Bible constantly beat us over the head with the fact that there is only ONE God in existence(e.g. Deuteronomy 4:39., Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:18., Isaiah 43:10-11...etc.), which is why the "trinity" had to be fabricated in the first place.

There is a third domino, however. Because, in the previous article, the myth of the "Initial sin" of Adam (peace be upon him) that God almighty is claimed to hold all of mankind responsible for was also exposed as a fabrication. This was proven by simply quoting the following verses:

Ezekiel 18:19-20 "Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.".

This verse was revealed long before the birth of Paul and his claims of "initial sin" and "redemption". It clearly states that all mankind is not held accountable by God almighty for the sin of Adam.

Also Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.".

And Jeremiah 31:29-30: "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge".

And Ezekiel 18:1-9: "The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?. As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God"

Other verses and proofs were presented, but to an unbiased mind, it should be obvious that Paul was indeed fabricating these lies as he was going along (Please read part 9 for a sworn admission of lying against God's glory by "St. Paul" himself and much more). Thus, the third domino has been toppled. So where is the forth?

The forth domino is the "domino" of "The atonement". If the "initial sin" and our inheritance of this initial sin is a fabrication, then there is no need to "atone" for it. There is no need for a blood sacrifice of pure and sinless human beings in order to erase the "initial sin". This is simple logic. You don't need the fire department if there is no fire.

So if the "Trinity", the "Son of God", the "initial sin" and the "atonement" are all fabrications, then what was the message of Jesus (pbuh)? Why was he sent? What did he preach? How did his message manage to become so seriously corrupted after his departure? Who did this and why?

All of these questions shall, by God's will, be answered in part 14. However, let us start with the following:

"Worship me!"

Many people claim that Jesus (pbuh) came to preach to the world the belief in the above concepts and the fact that all of mankind should worship him. It is interesting to note, however, that Jesus (pbuh)

never in his lifetime told anyone "I am God" or even "worship me". Does this not seem quite amazing for someone whose whole purpose in being was to be worshipped as the sinless divine savior and "sacrificial lamb" of all of mankind?

If Jesus (pbuh) was sent to earth with the sole purpose of dying on the cross to free mankind from the sin of Adam which all of mankind had forcibly inherited, then he must have known of his mission. If he did not know that this was his mission in life and he did not WILLINGLY submit to this most gruesome and humiliating fate then this implies that God almighty FORCED him AGAINST HIS WILL into this most horrible and torturous end through no fault of his own simply because he made the mistake of being sinless.

Since such a claim would require God to be a blood-thirsty and torturous God, for this reason, most of the clergy tell us that Jesus (pbuh) *WILLINGLY* accepted this fate. If this is so, and this was his sole reason in being, and his sole mission, then we would expect him to spend day and night drumming this into the minds of his followers. It would be logical to assume that he would spend day and night telling everyone "The religion of Moses and his commandments are old, decaying, and ready to vanish away. Forget about them. No one shall be justified through the commandments. Not even the previous prophets such as Abraham or Moses. Only through faith in my upcoming sacrifice and my death on the cross, and my decent into hell for three days, and in my being made a curse upon you, shall you be saved. If you believe in this and you worship me then you shall be saved without the need for the commandments".

This is indeed what "St. Paul" claimed:Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath reason to boast; but not before God.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree


So it is only logical to ask: Did Jesus (pbuh) himself ever say to anyone "I am God!", or "Worship me!"? Amazingly enough, the answer is a resounding NO!. When members of the clergy are asked

to present such an explicit claim from Jesus (pbuh) himself they resort to the same response they use for all of their problems (such as the "Trinity"). They answer AROUND the problem. They do not answer the problem itself. Their answer usually follows the following general stages:

He doesn't need to say it:

The first stab at having to avoid admitting that Jesus (pbuh) never once made such a claim in the whole Bible is to say that it should be obvious that he deserves worship and that he is God without him having to actually say so. They do this in very flowery and thesaurus-rich words, such as: "What makes Jesus stand out from all other religious figures is the nature of His claims about Himself. He claims the prerogatives of God, the rightful object of a person's supreme allegiance, and receives with out censure the worship and obedience of those who believe". (This is an actual quotation from just such a preacher)

So, we must ask: If Jesus (pbuh) receives worship "without censure" without asking for it, then why must God almighty ask for worship? For example, in Isaiah 66:23 we read "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD"

Why does God almighty have to ASK for worship while Jesus (pbuh) does not? Why does God have to TELL us that he is God but Jesus (pbuh) does not? God almighty tells us many times that he is God, and that he demand's our worship, and that this is his right (e.g. Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6..etc.). Why does his alleged son never do the same?

It is "implied":

The next step for the apologists is still not to admit that there is not a single verse in the Bible where Jesus (pbuh) says "I am God!" or "Worship me!", rather, they now resort to such claims as: "Jesus

forgave sins, so he MUST be god", or "Jesus said 'I am', thus, he is God"...etc. However, these are legitimate concerns, so let us study them:

Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") believe that a Muslim is rewarded for every single hardship he endures during his lifetime and that each hardship endured is used by God almighty to erase a previous sin by this individual. Even something so simple as a pin prick is counted to this end. How much greater the reward for a man who endured paralysis. His reward may very likely be forgivement of all of his sins. If Christianity believes that Jesus (pbuh) telling a paraplegic that his sins are forgiven is a sign of divineness then what are we to say about the many millions of people in the Christian clergy who accept people's "confessions" and "forgive" their sins?. Are they all the offspring of God and part of the trinity?. Do they call God on the telephone and ask His permission to forgive each individual or do they have "the power to forgive sins"?.

In "The five Gospels", written by 24 Christian scholars from some of the most prominent US and Canadian Universities around today, we read on page 44:

"Stories of Jesus curing a paralytic are found in all four narrative gospels, The Johannine version (John 5:1-9) differs substantially........The controversy interrupts the story of the cure- which reads smoothly if one omits vv. 5b-10 (Mark 2)- and it is absent in the parallel of John.....Scholars usually conclude, on the basis of this evidence, that Mark has inserted the dispute into what was originally a simple healing story.....If the words are to be attributed to Jesus, v. 10 may represent a bold new claim on Jesus' part that gives the authority to forgive sins to all human beings.......The early church was in the process of claiming for itself the right to forgive sins and so would have been inclined to claim that it's authorization came directly from Jesus".

We have already spoken about the term "Son of God" and it's true meaning as understood by the people of that time. What we want is a claim by Jesus himself where he says "Worship me" just as God almighty says for instance in Isaiah 66:23 "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD". Where does Jesus (pbuh) do the same?

The claim made by many that since in John 8:56-59 Jesus (pbuh) says "before Abraham was born, I am" means that he is God is not a valid argument. Why? Because, the fact that Jesus (pbuh) was present before Abraham (pbuh) is not the same as him saying "worship me!". What then would we say about Solomon (pbuh) (Proverbs 8:22-31) and Melchizedec (Hebrews 7:3), who were present not only before Abraham (pbuh), but also before all of creation?.

However, if the emphasis is to be placed on the words "I am", and it is to be compared to the verse of Exodus 3:14, please note that just because the English translation of these verses is performed such that they become the same English words does not mean that the *ORIGINAL* words are the same. The first is the GREEK word eimi {i-mee'}, while the second is the HEBREW word hayah {haw-yaw}. While both can be translated into English to mean the same thing, they are in actuality two distinctly different words. THE EXACT SAME GREEK WORD is translated as "It is I" in Matthew 14:27 and as simply "I" in Matthew 26:22 ...etc. Notice how people are driven in

a chosen direction of faith through selective translation?. Also remember that Jesus (pbuh) did not speak GREEK. Notice how people are deceived through deliberate dishonesty in the translation of the ancient manuscripts?

Why does Jesus (pbuh) never say "I am God!" or "worship me!"? Why must we infer?. If Jesus is God or the Son of God then this is his right. The Bible should be overflowing with verses where Jesus

commands his followers to worship him, where God commands mankind to worship his son, where God threatens those who do not worship His son, and so forth. The Bible is overflowing with verses

like this from God about Himself, and from Jesus (pbuh) about God, but there are none from Jesus (pbuh) about himself. Why is it necessary for God almighty to ask for people to worship Him while

Jesus (pbuh) is not required to do the same?

More deliberate distortion in the translation:

The final attempt at trying to prove that Jesus (pbuh) commanded people to worship him is to say: "People came to Jesus and worshipped him and he did not object, thus, he endorsed it". They quote such verses as John 9:38 "Lord. I believe, and he worshipped him." and Matthew 28:17 "they saw him, they worshipped him".

Once again, a valid concern. However, let us go back to the original manuscripts themselves and see what the original word was that is translated into English as "worshipped". Please note that the word translated as "worshipped" in both verses is the GREEK word proskuneo {pros-ku-neh'-o} which literally means (and I quote): "to kiss, like a dog licking his masters hand". Go back and check the Strong's concordance for this word. Is the act of kissing someone's hand the same as worshipping him?. Once again, selective translation. We now begin to see a trend of warping the meanings of

the verses through false translation in order to promote a given doctrine. The translator does not deem it worthy of Jesus (pbuh) that the person in front of him "kissed his hand", so he is made to

"worship" him. Technically, it is possible for the word "worship" to convey simple respect and not prayer, so the translator cleverly manages to get away with such a ploy, and most people are deceived

into understanding the word "worshipped" to mean "prayed". Is this how the word of God should be "translated"?

Jesus true claims:

Jesus (pbuh) never in his lifetime told anyone to worship him. It was others who did that. Quite the contrary, whenever Jesus (pbuh) spoke of worship, he always attributed it to God and never himself: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" Luke 4:8.

Notice the words: "Him ONLY". Jesus did not say "US only", or "Him and I only". How could he possibly make it more clear than that?. What abstract meaning are we now going to concoct for this

verse to show that what Jesus "really" meant was "worship both of us".

The problem with many apologists is that they "interpret" the words "he" and "him" to mean "we" and "us" when it suits them, and to mean "he" and "him" only when it suits them. In cases such as Luke 4:8, they claim that "him" really means "us". But in cases where God "begets" Jesus, or where God "sacrifices" Jesus, "him" and "he" is God alone and does not mean "us" and "we". Notice the trend ?.

Want more ?. "Jesus saith unto her, ... worship the Father" John 4:2.

"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship HIM" John 4:23.

Notice: "worship the FATHER", not "worship the father AND THE SON". Also notice: "worship HIM" not "worship US". "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven".

Matthew 7:21.

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy

soul, and with all thy mind". Matthew 22:37.

In the Bible we find many verses to this effect: Exodus 34:14

"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God". Psalms 81:9 "There shall no strange god be in thee; neither shalt thou worship any strange god".

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD".

"Many will say to me (Jesus) in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity".

Matthew 7:22-23

Now that the fabrications of mankind have been dispelled and the "trinity", "son of God", "initial sin", and "atonement" have all been exposed as the lies that they are, we will now move on by God's will to reveal the true historical facts surrounding the fabrication of these lies. We will by God's will do this, as we have been doing so far, by quoting the Bible and eminent Christian scholars only. Keep your eyes peeled for part 14 for an analysis of these historical facts. See you then (inshallah).

Misheal Al-Kadhi

Christian scholars tell us how and when the Bible was corrupted

In the last three articles, a detailed analysis of the myths of the "Trinity", "son of God", "initial sin", and "atonement" was studied. It was proven through the words of eminent Christian scholars and the Bible only how these concepts were all fabrications of mankind foisted upon the Message of Jesus (pbuh) by Paul and his followers after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). In this article, we shall start to display some of the true historical facts surrounding the fabrication of these myths, who concocted them, and why. In what follows, as you will now have become accustomed, only the Bible and eminent Christian scholars shall be quoted in order to reconstruct these historical facts.

Historical origin of the "trinity" myth

Someone may now say: "If the trinity was not revealed by God almighty or Jesus (pbuh) then why does Christianity believe in it?". The answer lies in the council of Nicaea of 325 CE.

In "The New Catholic Encyclopedia" (Encyclopedia (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating official approval), 1967, p.295, we get a glimpse of how the concept of the trinity was not introduced into Christianity until close to *FOUR HUNDRED YEARS* after Jesus (pbuh):

".......It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian assimilated into Christian life and thought"

Jesus (pbuh), John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, all of the apostles, and even Paul, were completely unaware of any "trinity".

So what did exactly happen in this fourth century CE?. Let us ask Mr. David F. Wright, a senior lecturer in Ecclesiastical History at the University of Edinburough. Mr. Wright has published a detailed account of the development of the doctrine of the "trinity". In "Eerdman's handbook to the history of Christianity", chapter on "Councils and creeds", we read:

"...Arius was a senior presbyter in charge of Baucalis, one of the twelve 'parishes' of Alexandria. He was a persuasive preacher, with a following of clergy and ascetics, and even circulated his teaching in popular verse and songs. Around 318 CE, he clashed with Bishop Alexander. Arius claimed that Father alone was really God; the Son was essentially different from his father. He did not possess by nature or right any of the divine qualities of immortality, sovereignty, perfect wisdom, goodness, and purity. He did not exist before he was begotten by the father. The father produced him as a creature. Yet as the creator of the rest of creation, the son existed 'apart from time before all things'.

Nevertheless, he did not share in the being of God the Father and did not know him perfectly".

We are told in this book that before the third century CE the "three" were separate in Christian belief and each had his or it's own status.

Terullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third-century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.

About this time, two separate events were about to lead up to the official recognition of the church by the pagan Roman empire. On the one hand, Emperor Constantine, the pagan emperor of the Romans, had a son named Crispus. Crispus was a handsome, charismatic, and brave young man who was the

popular hero of the Roman people. His popularity grew to such an extent that he began to pose a serious threat to the rule of his own father, Constantine. Therefore, Constantine had him killed. The people were outraged, so in order to cover his tracks, Constantine placed the blame for the death

of Crispus on his son's step mother and had her killed too. The people were now thrown into a great fury. Constantine had just made a bad situation much worse. He decided to seek forgiveness in the temple, but was told that no forgiveness could be granted for such an action. Finally he resorted to the church. They told him that forgiveness could be his through repentance. Thus, Constantine found

salvation in the church. He now began to look to the church for support in shoring up his rule of the Roman empire.

On the Christian front, controversy over the matter of the Trinity had just blown up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria, Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop. Now Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray. In 325 CE, the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine was faced with two serious controversies that divided his Christian subjects: The observance of the Passover on Easter Sunday, and the concept of the trinity. Emperor Constantine realized that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiations failed to settle the dispute, the emperor called the "Council of Nicaea" in order to resolve these, and other matters. The council met and voted on whether Jesus (pbuh) was God or not. They effectively voted Jesus into the position of God with an amendment condemning all Christians who believed in the unity of God. There is even extensive proof that most of those who signed this decree did not actually believe in it or understand it but thought it politically expedient to do so. Neo-Platonic philosophy was the means by which this newly defined doctrine of "Trinity" was formulated. One of the attendees, Apuleius, wrote "I pass over in silence", explaining that "those sublime and Platonic doctrines understood by very few of the pious, and absolutely unknown to every one of the profane". The vast majority of the others signed under political pressure consoling themselves with such words as " the soul is nothing worse for a little ink". They then approved the doctrine of homoousious meaning: of "CO-EQUALITY, CO-ETERNITY, AND CONSUBSTANTIALITY" of the second person of the trinity with the Father. The doctrine became known as the Creed of Nicaea.

The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine, Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism" became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who did not convert to the newly defined doctrine of the Trinity. Athanasius, the bishop who is popularly credited for having formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the more his thoughts recoiled upon themselves and the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it. After the Council of Chalcedon in 451, debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy and earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousand because of a difference of belief.

Worship of the Roman sun-god was very popular during this period. Emperor Constantine (who presided over the council of Nicaea) was popularly considered to be the manifestation of the Roman sun-god. For this reason, in order to please Constantine, the Trinitarian church:

-Defined Christmas to be on the 25th of December, the birthday of the Roman Sun-god

-Moved the Christian Sabbath from Saturday to the Roman Sun-day (Dies Soli), the holy day of the sun-god Apollo (see future articles, by God's will)

-Borrowed the emblem of the Roman Sun God, the cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity. Before this, the official symbol of Christianity was that of a fish, a symbol of the last supper (see future articles, by God's will)

-Incorporated most of the rituals performed on the Sun-God's birthday into their own celebrations.

Constantine was determined that the masses not think that he had forced these bishops to sign against their will, so he resorted to a miracle of God: Stacks of somewhere between 270 and 4,000 Gospels (one copy of all available Gospels at the time) were placed underneath the conference table and

the door to the room was locked. The Bishops were told to pray earnestly all night, and the next morning "miraculously" only the Gospels acceptable to Athanasius (The Trinitarian Bishop of Alexandria) were found stacked above the table. The rest were burned.

Arius was quickly condemned and then excommunicated. In 335 CE he was reinstated, but was poisoned and killed by the Trinitarian Bishop, Athanasius, in 336 CE. The Trinitarian

Church called his death "a miracle". Athanasius's treachery was discovered by a council appointed by Costanatine and he was condemned for Arius's murder.

Constantine had made it an imperial law to accept the Creed of Nicaea. He was a pagan emperor and at the time cared little if such a doctrine contradicted the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and the centuries of prophets of God before him who had suffered severe hardship in order to preach a monotheistic god to their people as can be seen in the Old Testament to this day. He just wanted to pacify and unite

his "sheep". Constantine embraced Christianity and was "baptized" on his death bed in 337 CE when water was poured on his forehead and died shortly thereafter. Ironically, Constantine died a believer in the divine unity and teachings of the Arians and not the new Trinitarian beliefs of the Pauline sect.

This "triune God" theory was not a novel concept but one that was in vogue during the early Christian era. There was:

1) The Egyptian triad of Ramses II, Amon-Ra, and Nut.

2) The Egyptian triad of Horus, Osiris, and Isis.

3) The Palmyra triad of moon god, Lord of the Heavens, and sun god.

4) The Babylonian triad of Ishtar, Sin, and Shamash.

5) The Mahayana Buddhist triune of transformation body, enjoyment body, and truth body.

6) The Hindu triad (Trimurti) of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.

...and so forth. (see future articles for more details, by God's will)

However, it is popularly recognized that the "trinity" which had the most profound effect in defining the Christian "trinity" was the philosophy of the Greek philosopher, Plato. His philosophy was based on a threefold distinction of:

The First Cause, the Reason or Logos, and the Soul or Spirit of the Universe.

Edward Gibbon, considered one of the greatest English historians, and the author of "Decline and

Fall of the Roman Empire", generally considered a masterpiece of both history and literature writes in this book:

"..His poetical imagination sometimes fixed and animated these metaphysical abstractions; the three archical or original principles with each other by the mysterious and ineffable generation; and the Logos was particularly considered under the more accessible character of the Son of an eternal Father, and the Creator and Governor of the world"

Gibbon, "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire", II, p. 9.

Even the practice of promoting men to the status of gods was common among the Gentiles at the time. Julius Caesar, for instance, was acknowledged by the Ephesians to be "a god made manifest and a common Savior of all human life". In the end, both the Greeks and the Romans acknowledged Caesar as a god. His statue was set up in a temple in Rome with the inscription: "To the unconquerable god". Another man who was elevated by the Gentiles to the status of a god was

Augustus Caesar. He was acknowledged as a god and the "divine Savior of the World". Emperor Constantine was also popularly believed to be the human embodiment of the Roman Sun-god. And on and on. Is it inconceivable that such people, after hearing of Jesus' (pbuh) many miracles, of his raising of the dead, of his healing of the blind, would consider elevating him to the status of a god?. These were simple people who had become accustomed to countless man-gods, and Jesus (pbuh) had become a legend among them even during his lifetime. No wonder it did not take them long to make him a god after his departure. In the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus himself indeed foretold that mankind would make him a god and severely condemned those who would dare to do so. The Bible itself bears witness to the fact that these Gentiles were all too willing to promote not just Jesus (pbuh), but even the apostles of Jesus to the position of gods (see Acts 14:1-14).

Moreover, the concept of resurrection was also not a novel one. The Greeks, like many other pagans, worshipped the earth and associated it's fertility with the fertility of woman. Many earth-mother goddesses arose out of this belief, such as Aphrodite, Hera, and so on. With this earth-mother goddess came the concept of a man-god who personified the vegetation cycle and often the sun cycle.

In the case of Osirus, Baal, and Cronus, he also represented a deceased king worshipped as divine. This man-god was always assumed to have been born on the 25th of December so as to correspond to the winter solstice (time of year when the sun is "born"). Forty days later, or about the time of

Easter, he had to be slain, laid in a tomb, and resurrected after three days so that his blood could be shed upon the earth in order to maintain or restore the fertility of the earth and in order to provide salvation for his worshipers. This was a sign to the believers that they too would enjoy eternal life. This man-god was usually called the "Soter" (Savior). This "Soter" sometimes stood alone, but usually was "The third, the savior" or "The savior who is third".

This man-god would be defeated and usually torn into pieces and his enemy would prevail. At this time, life would appear to have been sucked out of the earth. There would then come a third being who would bring back the dead god, or himself be the dead god restored. He would defeat the enemy. This matter will be dealt with in more detail in chapter three (for more also see "Islam and Christianity in the modern world", by Dr. Muhammad Ansari, and "Bible myths

and their parallels in other religions" by T. W. Doane, and "The history of Christianity in the light of modern knowledge; a collective work", Blackie & son limited, 1929).

By God's will, many more details of these pagan sect's acts of worship and how they were later "borrowed" by the Trinitarians will be presented in future articles.

Does any of this sound at all familiar?. Is it just an amazing coincidence that Paul's "New covenant" which he preached to these pagan Gentiles was almost a carbon copy of their established beliefs, or did God intentionally mold His religion after the departure of Jesus (pbuh) in order to closely resemble that of the pagan Gentiles?. Remember Paul's own words: "For if the truth of God hath more

abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?". Romans 3:7.

Even though the "Trinity" was formulated in the council of Nicaea, still, the concept of "Jesus was God", or the "incarnation" was not formulated until after the councils of Ephesus in 431, and the council of Chalcedone in 451:

"...the Catholics trembled on the edge of a precipice, where it was impossible to recede, dangerous to stand, dreadful to fall; and the manifold inconveniences of their creed were aggravated by the sublime character of their theology. They hesitated to pronounce that God Himself, the second person of an equal and cosubstantial trinity, was manifested in the flesh; that a being who pervades the universe, had been confined in the womb of Mary; that His eternal duration had been marked by the days, and months, and years, of human existence; that the Almighty had been scourged and crucified; that His impassable essence had felt pain and anguish; that His omniscience was not exempt from ignorance; and that the source of life and immortality expired on Mount Cavary. These alarming consequences were affirmed with the unblushing simplicity of Apollinans, Bishop of Laodicia, and one of luminaries of the church".

Gibbon, "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire", VI, p. 10.

Groliers encyclopedia under the heading of "Incarnation" informs us that

"Incarnation denotes the embodiment of a deity in human form. The idea occurs frequently in

mythology. In ancient times, certain people, especially kings and priests, were often believed to be divinities. In Hinduism, Vishnu is believed to have taken nine incarnations, or Avatars. For Christians, the incarnation is a central dogma referring to the belief that the eternal son of God, the second person of the Trinity, became man in the person of Jesus Christ. The incarnation was defined as a doctrine only after long struggles by early church councils. The Council of Nicaea (325) defined the deity of Christ against Arianism; the Council of Constantinople (381) defined the full humanity of the incarnate Christ against Apollinarianism; the Council of Ephesus (431) defined the unity of Christ's person against Nestorianism; and the Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the two natures

of Christ, divine and human, against Eutyches".

Notice that it took Christianity close to FIVE HUNDRED YEARS after the departure of Jesus to build up, justify, and finally ratify the "incarnation". Also notice that the apostles, their children, and their children's children for tens of generations were too ignorant to recognize the existence of an "incarnation". Jesus' (pbuh) very first and very closest followers were to ignorant to recognize this "truth".

It is not surprising then, that this doctrine of incarnation is not mentioned in the New Testament. Once again, the one verse which validates this claim, 1 Timothy 3:16, is again recognized as a later forgery which was foisted upon Jesus (pbuh) fully six centuries after his departure:

"This strong expression might be justified by the language of St. Paul (I TIM. 3.16), but we are deceived by our modern Bibles. The word "o" (which) was altered to "theos" (God) at Constantinople in the beginning of the 6th century: the true reading, which is visible in the Latin and Syriac version, still exists in the reasoning of the Greek, as well as the Latin fathers; and this fraud, with that of the three witnesses of St. John, is admirably detected by Sir Isaac Newton".

(emphasis added) Gibbon, "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire", VI, p. 10.

Notice how shortly after the "incarnation" was officially approved it was recognized that the Bible needed to be "corrected" and "clarified" so that the reader could see the "incarnation" clearly.

Even the holy "Easter" holiday is a pagan innovation unknown to Jesus (pbuh) and his apostles. The name "Easter" is derived from the pagan spring festival of the Anglo-Saxon goddess of light and spring "Eostre". Many folk customs associated with Easter (for example, Easter eggs) are of

pagan origin also. Her festival was celebrated on the vernal equinox (March 21st), and so too is the Christian "Easter". It was celebrated to commemorate spring and the sun regaining it's strength. Once again, the "Son" Jesus (pbuh), very coincidentally, regains his power and comes to life on the exact same day (see future articles for details, by Allah's will).

After the council of Nicea, 325AD., the following proud proclamation was made by the church:

"We also send you good news concerning the unanimous consent of all, in reference to the celebration of the most solemn feast of Easter; for the difference has also been made up by the assistance of your prayers; so that all the brethren of the east, who formerly celebrated this festival at the same time as the Jews, will in future conform to the Romans and to us and to all who have of old observed our manner of celebrating Easter".

For much, much more on the topic of the pagan influence on today's "Christianity", please read the books

"Islam and Christianity in the modern world", by Dr. Muhammad Ansari, and "Bible myths and their parallels in other religions" by T. W. Doane.

As mentioned above, the very first Christians were all devout Jews. These first followers of Jesus (including the apostles themselves) followed the same religion which Moses (pbuh) and his followers had followed for centuries before them. They knew of no "new covenant" or annulments of the

commandments of Moses (pbuh). They had been taught by Jesus (pbuh) that his religion was an affirmation of the religion of the Jews and a continuation of it. "The first fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem", writes Gibbon, "were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation over which they presided united the Law of Moses with the Doctrine of Christ".

Gibbon, "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire", II, p. 119.

Also remember the words of Professor Robert Alley:

"....The (Biblical) passages where Jesus talks about the Son of God are later additions.... what the church said about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have been consistent with his entire lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the first three decades after Jesus' death Christianity

continued as a sect within Judaism. The first three decades of the existence of the church were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they (the followers) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus".

(This would also have been beyond belief if they had preached the total cancellation and destruction of the law of Moses, as Paul did)

Toland observes:

"We know already to what degree imposture and credulity went hand in hand in the primitive times of the Christian Church, the last being as ready to receive as the first was to forge books, This evil grew afterwards not only greater when the Monks were the sole transcribers and the sole keepers of all books good or bad, but in process of time it became almost absolutely impossible to distinguish history from fable, or truth from error as to the beginning and original monuments of Christianity. How immediate successors of the Apostles could so grossly confound the genuine teaching of their masters with such as were falsely attributed to them?. Or since they were in the dark about these matters so early how came such as followed them by a better light? And observing that such Apocryphal books were often put upon the same footing with the canonical books by the Fathers, and the first cited as Divine Scriptures no less than the last, or sometimes, when such as we reckon divine were disallowed by them. I propose these two other questions: Why all the books cited genuine by Clement of Alexander. Origen. Tertullian and the rest of such writers should not be accounted equally authentic? And what stress should he laid on the testimony of those Fathers who not only contradict one another but are also often inconsistent with themselves in their relations of the very same facts?" (emphasis added). The Nazarenes, John Toland, pp. 73.

Jesus (pbuh) himself did indeed foretell of this most tragic situation in the verse of John 16:2-4

"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time comes, that whosoever kills you will think that he does God service And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, you may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.".

Well then, why did the masses in the centuries after this not revolt and renew the original teaching of Jesus (pbuh)?. Because the Bible was made the property of the privileged few. No one was allowed to read it, nor to translate it into other languages. When these privileged few came into power in what would later be called by the West "The dark ages", the Bible was hoarded by these men and they were claimed to be the only ones who could understand it's teachings. The first authoritative English translation of the Bible was completed by Mr. William Tyndale, popularly considered a master of both the Hebrew and Greek languages. The King James Bible was based upon his translation. He was forced into exile in 1524 and later condemned and burned to death as a heretic in 1536 for the vile and blasphemous deed of translating the Bible into English.

With the rule of the church came the great "Inquisitions". The Inquisitions were a medieval church court instituted to seek out and prosecute heretics. Notoriously harsh in its procedures, the Inquisition was defended during the rule of the church by appeal to biblical practices and to the church father Saint Augustine himself (354-430 AD), the great luminary of the church, who had interpreted Luke 14:23 as endorsing the use of FORCE against heretics in order to convert them. Mr. Tom Harpur observes "The horrors of the Crusades and the notorious Inquisitions are all but a small part of this tragic tale".

Okay, but surely of those who had access to the Bible there must have been some who would have revealed these matters. As it happens, there were. Sadly, they were all put to death or tortured until they recanted their views. Their books were also burned. For instance, Isaac de la Peyere was one of many scholars to notice many serious discrepancies in the Bible and to write about them openly. His book was banned and burned. He was arrested and informed that in order to be released he would have to recant his views to the Pope. He did. There are countless such examples for those who would simply research their history books.

The Trinitarian church's campaign of death and torture for all Christians refusing to compromise their beliefs continued for many centuries after the creation of the trinity in 325 CE. Many brilliant scholars and leaders of the Unitarian Christians were condemned, tortured, and even burned alive in a very slow and drawn-out manner. Only some of these men are: Origen (185-254 CE), Lucian (died 312 CE), Arius (250-336 CE), Michael Servetus (1511-1553 CE), Francis David (1510-1579 CE), Lelio Francesco Sozini (1525-1562 CE), Fausto Paolo Sozini (1539-1604 CE), John Biddle (1615-1662 CE).... and on and on.

This wholesale condemnation became so bad that it was not sufficient to condemn individuals any more, but rather, whole nations were condemned and killed. An example is the Holy decree of 15th of February 1568 which condemned all of the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. Three million men women and children where sentenced to the scaffold in three lines by the benevolent Trinitarian church. Why does no one cry "Holocaust" for these poor people?.

John Lothrop Motly's "Rise of the Dutch Republic" indicates:

"Upon the 15th of February 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named,were excepted. A proclamation of King Philip II of Spain, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution. . . Three millions of people, men, women and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines. Under the new decree, the executions certainly did not slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest positions were daily and hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in a single letter to Philip II, coolly estimates the number of executions which were to take place immediately after the expiration of Holy Week at "eight hundred heads".

Toland asks in his book The Nazarenes:

"Since the Nazarenes and Ebonites (Unitarian Christians) are by all the Church historians unanimously acknowledged to have been the first Christians, or those who believe in Christ among the Jews with which, his own people, he lived and died, they having been the witness of his actions, and of whom were all the apostles, considering this, I say how it is possible for them to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus?. And how came the Gentiles who believed on him after his death by the preaching of persons that never knew him to have truer notions of these things, or whence they could have their information but from the believing Jews?". (emphasis added).

Only today when true religious freedom, scientific knowledge, and geological discoveries have come together in the study of the Bible and other ancient documents have Christians started to see the truth. An example of this can be found in the British newspaper the "Daily News" 25/6/84 under the heading "Shock survey of Anglican Bishops" We read that a British television pole of 31 of the 39 Anglican Bishops of England found 19 to believe that it is not necessary for Christians to believe that Jesus (pbuh) is God, but only "His supreme agent" (his messenger) as taught by Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") for 1400 years now and testified to by Jesus (pbuh) himself in John 17:3

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent".

The systematic destruction of the law of Jesus

Jesus (pbuh) was a very devout Jew. No Jew could ever raise a finger to him and say why do you not observe the Sabbath?. Why do you eat pork?. Jesus (pbuh) departed never having eaten pork, never having violated the Sabbath, divorce was disallowed except in adultery during his lifetime. He followed the law of Moses to the letter. However, Paul's dreams have now legalized for all Christians that which Jesus (according to the Bible) died believing in. You will not find a single priest or evangelist who tells his Christian followers "to enter heaven, only keep the commandments". (as his "Lord" did) You will not find a single Christian on the face of the earth today who refrains from eating pork or observes the Sabbath as his "Lord" did, and died doing. There are so many differences between Christians today and Jesus and his actions. Christians in general follow the commandments of Paul and others who are given the power to totally cancel out all of the

commandments of both Moses and Jesus, and no Christian has any reservations whatsoever. Christianity is literally built around the premise that disciples of disciples, have the power (through their dreams) to cancel the commandments of their prophets and even the law practiced by the alleged

son of God himself.

Let us look at this matter a little closer. Jesus (pbuh) considered pigs such filthy and disgusting animals that not only did he never taste their flesh (coincidentally, Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") also live out their lives never having tasted a single swine), but he literally considered them so lowly that they were only fit as garbage dumps for devils. In Matthew 8:31-32 we read

"So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.".

However, shortly after Jesus' departure, Peter is alleged to have had a dream and then made lawful

all of the creatures of the earth (Acts 11:5-10). In one tragic moment, Jesus' lifetime of restraint was casually swept under the carpet.

Jesus (pbuh) never in his lifetime changed a single commandment from the law of Moses (pbuh). He departed leaving his followers with the following words: Matthew 23:1-3, Matthew 5:17-19

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven".

Paul's dreams, however, have broken commandments right and left. There is so much of what Jesus (pbuh) did during his lifetime that his followers have now totally neglected, not because Jesus (pbuh) told them to break the commandments, but because Paul would later tell them to break them upon

the authority of the "visions" he was receiving. So, what we have concluded from the current view of Jesus' master plan is the following:

1) Jesus (pbuh) lived among his people for thirty three years showing them many miracles and teaching them to keep the commandments of Moses, to observe the Sabbath, to refrain from eating pork, to circumcise their children, to fast with the Jews and so forth. He did not do this with his words alone but gave them an example in his own actions. Whenever he spoke about his miracles he claimed that he did them through "the finger of God" and so forth and that he "can of mine own self do nothing". Whenever he spoke of worship he would say "worship the father" and not "worship me", "worship the trinity", or "worship us". He also never said "I am a god". The term "Son of God" was used by his people for many millennia before him to describe a devout

servant of God and applied in the Bible to many prophets before him and even to common people. Further, God was understood by the people of his time to be the "Father" of all those who love him.

2) For three centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh), his apostles and their followers (excluding Paul and his followers) continued the tradition of Jesus (pbuh) as faithful Jews and followers of the law of Moses (pbuh). They practiced their worship in the synagogues of the Jews, and for all intents and purposes were indistinguishable for all other Jews except for the fact that they affirmed that Jesus (pbuh) was the promised Messiah, which many Jews did not (and still do not) accept. None of these people, not even Paul, had ever heard of a "trinity". Jesus (pbuh) decided not to reveal his (and God's) "true" nature until three centuries after his departure. He decided that three centuries after his departure it would be time to come to the church and give them divine "inspiration" to "insert" verses in the Bible validating the "trinity". These "inspired" revelations from Jesus are documented by Christian historians to have been continuing at least up till the fifteenth century CE (see above). Jesus also "inspired" them to utterly destroy all Gospels written before this fourth century which did not teach this "true" nature of Jesus as being God. He further "inspired" the church to utterly destroy all ancient manuscripts written in the original Aramaic or Hebrew language of Jesus (pbuh) and the apostles. He "inspired" them that the Greek and Latin "translations" would be amply sufficient. And finally, he "inspired" them to launch a massive campaign of "inquiry" to "cleanse" the earth of all remaining Unitarian Christians or convert them.

3) When Jesus (pbuh) departed, his followers continued to faithfully follow his example and observe the laws of Moses. Now Paul comes along and persecutes the followers of Jesus every way he knows how. He admits that: "For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it" Galatians 1:13.

Now Jesus (pbuh) decides to bypass his apostles and go directly to the worst persecutor of his followers on earth in a "vision" and give him knowledge not available to the apostles. Paul now reveals that God holds all of mankind responsible for the sin of Adam (Romans 5:11-19,

1 Corinthians 15:22). God himself, however, claims long before Paul was ever born that

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" Deuteronomy 24:16.

and "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" Ezekiel 18:20....etc.

4) Paul further revealed that Jesus came to him in "visions" and told him to nullify the commandments of God which he had spent thirty three years on earth upholding and teaching his followers to observe, and that these commandments "decayeth", were ready to "vanish away", and were a "curse" upon us. The only requirement in order to enter heaven, according to Paul, is to believe in the initial sin and the atonement. No actual work is necessary. This one belief is the only necessary and sufficient condition. However, Jesus departed not only never having violated the law of Moses but also having told his people that "till heaven and earth pass" whoever would dare to do so would be called "the least in the kingdom of God". Jesus (pbuh) was claimed to have been conditioned and prepared for "the atonement" from the beginning of time, however, whenever he was asked about the path to heaven he not only never mentioned any atonement but only (repeatedly) told his followers to "keep the commandments". Even when pressed for the path to PERFECTION

he only told his followers to sell their belongings.

5) Jesus never in his life saw fit to write a single inspired word. However, after he died, he started appearing to countless people in their dreams and visions and commanding them to write in his name and guiding their words. He did not see fit to guide their hands from writing conflicting versions of the same story (see previous articles) since these conflictions were intended to strengthen a Christian's faith.

6) Since the only course to salvation is to accept the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh) and the law of Moses is worthless, therefore, God did not see fit to allow those born before Jesus (pbuh) including countless previous prophets to enter heaven, but rather allowed them to remain stained with the sin of Adam and gave them a very strict and complicated law that was totally useless and could never relieve them of this hereditary stain. Only those after Jesus (pbuh) will receive true salvation (Romans 3:28...etc.).

We have already seen in parts 9 and 10 the details of how "St. Paul" utterly corrupted the religion of Jesus (pbuh) after his departure. We have already seen in part 9 how Paul swears in the name of God almighty that the story of his conversion was a fabrication. Let us see what else we can learn about him:

There are many more similar examples of how Paul openly and blatantly made major changes to the religion of Jesus that flagrantly contradicted both the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Another example can be seen in the following analysis: God almighty commands in Genesis 17:10-14:

"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant".

So God himself is telling us that His covenant can only be had through circumcision. The significance of circumcision was also noted by Biblical scholars as being not merely an external

act: "This was His own sign and seal that Israel was a chosen people. Through it a man's life was linked with great fellowship whose dignity was it's high consciousness that it must fulfill the purpose of God" (Interpreter's Bible, p. 613).

Circumcision was considered of such critical importance to Jewish faith that they would even violate the Sabbath to circumcise their children if the eighth day fell on the Sabbath. John 7:22

"and ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?".

Jesus himself was circumcised on the eighth day just like all faithful Jews: Luke 2:21:

"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS". After the departure of Jesus, circumcision became an issue of personal conflict between the apostle Peter who insisted upon it (preach to Jews only) and Paul who wanted to do away with it (preach to non-Jews also). Galatians 2:7: "I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised".

Paul then goes into great details about how the apostles were wrong and he was right and how even Barnabas followed in their "hypocrisy" and it was necessary for him to show the apostles the truth (in the King James Version, the actual word used by Paul in Galatians 2:13 is diplomatically translated as "dissimulation.". However, in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible which was compiled from more ancient manuscripts than the KJV, the word Paul used is honestly translated as "hypocrisy").

Paul now mentions James (James the son of thunder, James the Just), Peter (the rock), and Barnabas (Paul's teacher and protector) in the following manner: Galatians 2:14

"I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel".

So now it becomes apparent from Paul's words that, in addition to all the above, the apostles were also misguided. It would have been interesting to have heard for instance Barnabas' version of these matters had he been chosen as the "majority author" of the Bible rather than Paul. According to many similar passages, it seems that the apostles were constantly in need of Paul's guidance to recognize the truth. To get Barnabas's version of these matters, his opinion of Paul, as well as what really happened at the cross look for "The Gospel of Barnabas", ISBN 0089295-133-1, at your local library, or obtain your copy from one of the addresses listed at the back of this book.

As mentioned in a previous article, Paul himself was not even sure about his own "visions". In

2 Corinthians 12:1-5 we read: "It is expedient for me to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.".

So Paul did not know if the man in his "visions" was "in the body" or "out of the body". Paul's

vision also contained "unspeakable words" which were "not lawful for a man to utter".

If I told you that I had seen someone in a "vision", had heard "unspeakable words that are not lawful to utter" in this vision, had been commanded by this person to "lie unto God's glory", and had been told to nullify the commandments which Jesus (pbuh) had upheld his whole life, who would you say this described?. Who had I seen?.

The Qur'an says:

"And if it be said unto them: Follow that which Allah has revealed, they say:

Nay, but we follow that wherein we found our fathers.

What! Even though the devil was inviting them to the torture of the fire?"

The Qur'an, Lukman(31):21.

What is wrong with this picture?. Even if we were to disregard Paul's sworn admission of fabrication and were to accept the established beliefs of Paul's inspiration and faultlessness (a very big "if"), then we are still left with the following picture:

Paul, a man who according to his own admission "beyond measure" severely persecuted countless Christians "slaughtered" them, and also "wasted" the church (Galatians 1:13-15, Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-2, Acts 9:41, Acts 6:5.. etc.), a man who never met Jesus face to face, underwent a "miraculous" conversion from a persecutor and killer of Christians into a more perfect teacher of Christianity than

the apostles themselves. He was singled out by Jesus' ghost to receive a "vision" which was denied the apostles who had accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his lifetime (Galatians 1:10-12). Paul had acquired such a terrible reputation as a persecutor of Christians that no one was willing to accept his claims of conversion. It was only the intervention of Barnabas, who's words obviously carried a great deal of weight with the apostles, which allowed the apostles to grudgingly accept him. Barnabas then traveled extensively with Paul building up his reputation among the Jews as a true convert. Once Paul acquired a reputation of his own, he had a falling out with Barnabas (Acts 15:39, Galatians 2:13). They parted company. Paul now claimed that Jesus (pbuh) wanted him to "relax" the law in order to make it a little more palatable for new converts, and this is when Paul began to make drastic changes to the law of Jesus (pbuh).

Paul decided that his "visions" were sufficient authority to contradict the teachings of the apostles and consider them hypocrites. Even Barnabas, the apostle who traveled with Paul teaching him and preaching to the Jews, who was willing to accept this persecutor of Christians claims of conversion

at face value, and the man who single handedly convinced the apostles to accept this same persecutor of Christians is now considered by Paul a hypocrite and less able to understand the religion of Jesus (pbuh) than himself. Paul also believed that

"...I labored more abundantly than they (The apostles) all" 1 Corinthians 15:10.

So, the apostles of Jesus were such lazy layabouts that Paul was doing more work than all eleven of them. All of this even though the apostles spent countless years with Jesus (pbuh) learning

directly from him while Paul, who has never met Jesus in person, practically overnight transforms from a persecutor and killer of Christians and the apostles to a more perfect teacher of Christianity than the apostles themselves. It is quite lucky for us that Paul received this "vision", otherwise we might have been lead astray by the lazy, misguided, hypocritical apostles. For Barnabas's version of

these matters, read "The Gospel of Barnabas".

Let us time out for a quick analyses of the above verses:

1) Paul according to his own admission "beyond measure" severely persecuted countless Christians, strove to "slaughter" them, and also "wasted" the church (Galatians 1:13-15, Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-2, Acts 9:41, Acts 6:5.. etc.).

2) Paul receives "visions" and is saved (Acts 22:9, Acts 9:7...etc.)

3) Paul is not sure exactly what he saw in his visions.(2 Corinthians 12:1-5)

4) Paul's visions contained "unspeakable words that it is

unlawful to utter". (2 Corinthians 12:1-5)

5) Paul tells us that the person in his visions was Jesus (pbuh). He declares that he received his teachings of "Christianity" from these visions and from no one else, not even the apostles.

(Galatians 1:12).

6) Paul "lies" unto "God's Glory" in order that God's "truth" may "abound"(Romans 3:7).

7) The apostles differ with Paul regarding the "truth" of the circumcision ordained by God and other matters.(1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 2:7...etc.).

8) The apostles, according to Paul, did not walk "uprightly" according to the "truth of the Gospel" and were lazy, misguided, hypocrites (1 Corinthians 15:10, Galatians 2:14, Galatians 2:13).

9) Most of the books of the New Testament are written by Paul himself. In them, Paul himself gives an unblushing pronouncement of how he was a vastly superior apostle of Jesus (pbuh) than the apostles who accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his ministry and they all needed his guidance to see

the "truth" of Jesus' message and how Jesus (pbuh) and the apostles appointed him the twelfth apostle..

Summary: If the truth of God needs lies unto God's Glory to establish it, and Paul himself admits to having lied unto God's Glory, and the apostles were not following this "truth" as close as Paul would have liked, then the apostles must not have been lying against God's glory enough for Paul's taste.

Regardless, it is well known that just prior to Paul's "miraculous" conversion and "heavenly vision" he had been extremely infatuated with a woman called Popea and had wished to marry her. Popea was the attractive but ambitious daughter of the high priest of the Jews. She possessed haughty beauty, and an intriguing mind. She liked Paul but rejected his offers of marriage. She went to Rome as an actress. She started on the stage and ended up in Emperor Nero's bed. She eventually married him and became the Empress of the Roman Empire. Paul, therefore, had good reason to hate both the Jews and the Romans. His "vision" coincided with Popea's rejection.

These apostles that Paul looked down upon as lazy misguided hypocrites are the selfsame apostles who had accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his lifetime, who taught all of mankind (including Paul himself) the teachings of Jesus (pbuh), and who endured the persecution of many (including Paul) to

convey this message. The Pauline Church (The Roman Catholic church which later gave birth to other churches such as the Protestant church) was to later go on and concoct the doctrine of the trinity about three hundred years after the departure of Jesus, to severely condemn, persecute, and kill any Christians who did not convert to their own personal brand of Christianity, to have presided over the death of millions of Christians who did not adopt this belief. To have presided over the destruction of many hundreds of "unacceptable" Gospels (some sources claim thousands) some of which were written by the apostles themselves, and to have issued death warrants for all those found concealing them... and on and on.

Even with all of this, the Gospel of Barnabas has managed to escape this campaign of destruction of the Gospels and is available today. It confirms all that we have said and what the Qur'an has been saying for centuries. It also presents Barnabas's response to Paul's claims and his account of what

truly happened at the cross and how Jesus (pbuh) was not forsaken by God to the Jews, but was raised by God, and Judas the traitor was made to look like Jesus (pbuh) and was taken in his place. Barnabas, of course, accompanied Jesus (pbuh) and was an eye-witness to his mission. Paul was not.

Getting back to our story.... Paul had a falling out with the apostles and decided that

"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God" 1 Corinthians 7:19.

Even though circumcision was held in an even higher regard than the Sabbath itself in the law of Moses and the "commandments of God", still, Paul taught that it is possible to keep the

commandments even if, contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, this foremost commandment of circumcision was abandoned.

In the end, Paul decided that all the commandments of God through Moses (pbuh) which Jesus (pbuh) had kept faithfully till the crucifixion and which the apostles had also kept were all worthless decaying and ready to vanish away and faith was all that was required, thereby completely nullifying everything his "Lord" Jesus had taught and practiced during his lifetime. Romans 3:28: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law". He decided that the laws of Moses (pbuh) (e.g. "thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, ...etc.") which Jesus (pbuh) had taught the faithful during his lifetime were a "curse" upon them and no longer necessary, Galatians

3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law". He then went about teaching the "true" meanings of the teachings of Jesus and Paul's teachings are what are now known as "Christianity".

Paul himself readily admits that he was both willing and able to recruit new converts by any means at his disposal:

1 Corinthians 9:20 "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law(Gentiles), as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law"

and 1 Corinthians 9:22: "...I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some"

and 1 Corinthians 6:12: "...all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any".

What are some of these "means" Paul used to "save some", well, as we have seen, one of them is his admitted habit of LYING AGAINST GOD'S GLORY in order to propagate his doctrine. However, he believed that the truth "abounded" through his lies (Romans 3:7). Paul also openly admits that

his teachings were not obtained from the apostles of Jesus, but from a vision of Jesus denied the apostles: Galatians 1:12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ". Did Jesus (pbuh) come to Paul in a "vision" and command him to lie against God?. Is God's light so week that it can only be advanced through Paul's lies?. Are Paul's lies so "pious" as to advance God's glory in a manner that would be impossible through truth and light alone?. Is this what Jesus (pbuh) was teaching him in his "visions"?. Is this the religion of God?. Please go back and read part 9 for more details.

Christian scholars today unanimously agree that the very first Christians, including the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) were all Unitarians and that the trinity was not concocted until around the beginning of the fourth century. These Unitarians enjoyed a large following and spread throughout much of North Africa among other places. During this period, any Roman or Greek gentile who wanted to enter into

Christianity pretty much was allowed to choose which "Christianity" he wanted. The one preached by Barnabas and the apostles which involved a strict and complicated law of Moses (pbuh), or the much simpler "New covenant" of Paul which only required "faith in Jesus" and which was later

made more appealing to them by the Pauline Church by incorporating a "Trinity" and other changes into it so that it would more closely resemble the Roman and Greek established beliefs of multiple Gods and father-Gods and Son-Gods and Demi-Gods and Goddesses ...etc.

Toland says in his book The Nazarenes:

"...amongst the Gentiles, so inveterate was the hatred of the Jews that their observing of anything, however reasonable or necessary, was sufficient motive for a Gentile convert to reject it".

If Paul wanted to convert these people, he would need to make Christianity a little more appealing to them, which he (and his church) did.

One of these first Unitarian Christians, Iranaeus (130-200 AD), a follower of the Gospels of Barnabas and the apostles, and one of the first Christians to be killed because of their adherence to the unity of God, has the following to say about such as Paul and his church: "In order to amaze the simple and such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of Truth, they obtrude upon them an inexpressible multitude of

apocryphal and spurious scriptures of their own devising" (the Gospels in our possession today).

When the Pauline Church gained power and influence in Rome these Unitarian Christians were officially condemned, persecuted and killed. An attempt was made to totally obliterate them and their books by forcing them to accept the trinity or else to be killed as heretics and by burning their Gospels. Over a million of these Unitarian Christians were then put to death because of their refusal to compromise their belief. In spite of this, their beliefs have survived even to this day. When Islam came with the call to one God and the belief in Jesus (pbuh) and his miracles, these Unitarian Christians were among the first people to recognize the word of God and accept Islam.

So thorough has Paul and his church been in totally eradicating all of the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and his first apostles that nothing has survived.

The early believers were expecting an Arabian Prophet.  The OT thoroughly talks about him and his new Covenant coming from Kedar in Arabia, and the NT talks about him coming after the Messiah:

Why wasn't Prophet Muhammad preached by the early Christians in Jerusalem, Arabia, Africa and Europe?  Early cities like Antioch, Corinth, Rome and others were never taught the coming of Prophet Muhammad.  Doesn't this prove that Islam is falseBut he was preached!


Not even Jesus' (pbuh) preferred method of greeting his followers. From ancient times, the prophets of God including Moses, Joseph, David, Jesus, the angles of God and many others including God himself have made it their custom to greet the believers

with the words "Peace be with you". This can be seen in such verses as Genesis 43:23, Judges 6:23, 1 Samuel 25:6, Numbers 6:26, 1 Samuel 1:17, Luke 24:36, John 20:19, John 20:26, and especially Luke 10:5: "And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house" to name a few.

Can anyone guess what Muhammad (pbuh) taught his followers to say when greeting each other or departing from each other?. You guessed it!. "Assalam alaikum" or "Peace be unto you". Have you ever met a Christian who greets other Christians with the words of Jesus (pbuh): "Peace be unto


Remember the words of the scholars of Christianity regarding "St. Paul":

Heinz Zahrnt calls Paul "the corrupter of the Gospel of Jesus". From "The Jesus Report", Johannes Lehman, p. 126.

Werde describes him as "The second founder of Christianity". He further says that due to Paul: "...the discontinuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ of the Church became so great that any unity between them is scarcely recognizable" .

From "The Jesus Report", Johannes Lehman, p. 127.

Schonfield wrote: "The Pauline heresy became the foundation of the Christian orthodoxy and the legitimate Church was disowned as heretical". From "The Jesus Report", Johannes Lehman, p. 128.

Another Christian, Mr. Michael H. Hart, in his book "The 100, a ranking of the most influential persons in history", places Muhammad (pbuh) in first place, next comes Paul, and Jesus (pbuh) after Paul. Like most other Christian scholars besides himself, he recognizes Paul as the being more

deserving of credit for "Christianity" than "Christ" himself.

Grolier's encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading "Christianity":

"After Jesus was crucified, his followers, strengthened by the conviction that he had risen from the dead and that they were filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, formed the first Christian community in Jerusalem. By the middle of the 1st century, missionaries were spreading the new religion among the peoples of Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Greece, and Italy. Chief among these was Saint Paul, who laid the foundations of Christian theology and played a key role in the transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect to a world religion. The original Christians, being Jews, observed the dietary and ritualistic laws of the Torah and required non-Jewish converts to do the same. Paul and others favored eliminating obligation, thus making Christianity more attractive to Gentiles".

As we can see, this information is not new. It has been well recognized and documented for centuries now. Even centuries ago, it was well known that most of what was claimed by the church could not be verified through the Bible. Thus, a shift was made from obtaining ones inspiration from the Bible to abstaining it from the "Bride of Jesus", the church. Fra Fulgentio, for instance, was once reprimanded by the Pope in a letter saying

"Preaching of the Scriptures is a suspicious thing. He who keeps close to the Scriptures will ruin the Catholic faith".

In his next letter he was more explicit: "...which is a book if anyone keeps close to will quite destroy the Catholic faith". Tetradymus, John Toland.

I would like nothing more than to present much more supporting evidence of these matters, however, we must end somewhere. For a detailed historical account collected from the writings of the church itself, I strongly recommend the book "Jesus, A Prophet of Islam" by Muhammad `Ata ur-Rahim,

and "Blood on the cross", by Ahmed Thomson.

For a book that is claimed to have remained 100% the inspired word of God, the sheer number of contradicting narrations boggles the mind (see previous articles). These matters have been well known and documented by Christian scholars for a long time now. It is the masses who don't know this. The information is out there for anyone who will simply look for it. The historical inconsistencies and scriptural contradictions are well recognized in this century and countless books have been written about them. However, their studies have always stopped short of the final step. People have generally believed that there is now way to retrieve the original teachings of Jesus (pbuh)

after such extensive and continuous revision of the text of the Bible over so many centuries as well as the Paulian Church's massive campaign of destruction of all Gospels not conforming to their personal beliefs. But where human intellect has failed, God has intervened. The Qur'an has been sent down by the same one who sent the Bible. It contains the original, uncorrupted teachings of God. We invite all readers to study the Qur'an just as we have studied the Bible, and to make up their minds if our claims bear merit.

As this series of articles winds to a close, we find one last piece of business unattended to. By Allah's will, it shall be dealt with in the following article. This last article shall (inshallah) exhibit the historical details of where the concepts of "Trinity" and so forth came from, and how the Trinitarians "borrowed" extensively from the same ancient paganism Jesus (pbuh) fought so valiantly to destroy

in order to define their religion of "Christianity". See you then inshallah.

Misheal Al-Kadhi

How the "trinitarians" borrowed from ancient paganism

In the last few articles, it was proven through the words of Christian scholars and the Bible itself how the "trinty", "son of God", "initial sin", and "atonement" were all fabrications of mankind. Extensive proof that all of this was presented not from the quotations of Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more"), but from the admisions of eminent Christian scholars and the Bible itself.

After that, the true historical facts of how, when, and by whom the Bible was corrupted were also presented. It was shown how "St. Paul" was the one primarily responsible for introducing this corruption into the religion of Jesus (pbuh) and how his followers later took it upon themselves to "elaborate" and "extend" his corruption over many centuries. It was demonstrated, once again through the writings of Christians, how their beliefs were forced upon the masses through death, torture, and mutilation. However, the question remains: Did the followers of Paul simply concoct their religion out of thin air or did they have some sources of "inspiration" which they were "borrowing" from? In this article we shall do our best to answer this question.

In this article, we shall (inshallah) demonstrate that most of the practices of today's "Christianity" as well as most of it's beliefs were "borrowed" from the same paganism Jesus (pbuh) fought so valiantly

during his lifetime to destroy. As the reader will by now have become accustomed, this will be proven through the writings of Christians themselves. We shall demonstrate how all of these practices and

beliefs were well established among many other pagan cults centuries before the arrival of Paul and his "visions".

The expanse of land between the river Nile and the river Euphrates was home to the Jews for centuries before the coming of Jesus (pbuh). During this period, this land fell under the rule of many empires, including the Babylonians, the Persians, and the Romans, all of whom themselves had extensive contact with many other cultures and beliefs. We shall see in what follows that the religion of Jesus (pbuh) was warped after his departure through the influence of all of these cultures and beliefs and how it now bears characteristics of many of these religions, including Buddhism, Roman and Greek worship, Hinduism, Persian and Egyptian beliefs, in addition to Judaism and many others.

The following information has been obtained from the books "Islam and Christianity in the modern world", by Dr. Muhammad Ansari, and

"Bible myths and their parallels in other religions" by T. W. Doane.

The general impression among Christians today is that the difference between today's "Christianity" and Paganism is so great that any similarity between them is scarcely recognizable. This, however, is far from the truth. The more knowledgeable a Christian becomes with today's "Christianity", the more they realize that it is the end result of a continuous effort to foist upon Jesus (pbuh) and his apostles the pre-existent beliefs of ancient paganism. The established beliefs of these pagans were "inserted" into the word of God and it's religious practices through the agency of many centuries of divine "inspiration" to the Church. The most knowledgeable among Christian scholars are the

most well-acquainted with this fact.

The great luminary of the Church, Saint Augustine himself (354-430 AD.), is quoted to have said "The same thing which is now called CHRISTIAN RELIGION existed among the ancients. They have begun to call Christian the true religion which existed before".

"Our love for what is old, our reverence for what our fathers used, makes us keep still in the church, and on the very altar cloths, symbols which would excite the smile of an Oriental, and lead him to wonder why we send missionaries to his land, while cherishing his faith in ours" James Bonwick

Where to start?. There is so much to say. The examples are so numerous. Why not start with the very symbol of Christianity itself, the "cross".

The Cross:

Current historical knowledge recognizes the fact that the cross was well recognized as a religious symbol long before the advent of Jesus (pbuh). It was adored in India as the symbol of the Hindu god

Agni, the "light of the world". It was placed in the hands of Siva, Brahma, Vishnu, Krishna, Tvashtri, and Jama. The cross was also well known among the Buddhists from ancient times and the followers of Lama of Thibet.

The ancient Egyptians also adopted the cross as a religious symbol of their pagan gods. Countless Egyptians drawings depict themselves holding crosses in their hands. Among them, the Egyptian savior Horus is depicted holding a cross in his hand. He is also depicted as an infant sitting on his mother's knee with a cross on the seat they occupy. The most common of the crosses used by these pagan Egyptians, the CRUX ANSATA, was later adopted by the Christians The Egyptian savior, Osiris, the Egyptian god of the dead and the underworld, is sometimes represented holding out this cross to mortals signifying that this person has discarded mortality for the life to come.Another cross has been unearthed in Ireland. It belongs to the cult of the Persian god of the sun "Mithra" and bears a crucified effigy. The Greeks and Romans too adopted the cross as their religious symbol many centuries before Christianity did the same. An ancient inscription in Tessaly is accompanied by a Calvary cross. More crosses can be found to adorn the tomb of king Midas in Phrygia. The examples are far too numerous to list here, however, anyone wishing to learn more is encouraged to read the books mentioned above.

The "Trinity":

Now let us study the "Trinity" and it's roots in ancient pagan worship. The "Trinity" of Christendom, as defined in the creed of Nicea, is a merging of three distinct entities into one single entity, while remaining three distinct entities. We are told to speak of the three gods as one god. The are considered to be co-eternal, co-substantial, and co-equal. However, only the first was self existent.

The others preceded from the first. This sort of self-contradictory philosophical warping of the message of Jesus (pbuh) has it's roots not in the inspiration of God, but in ancient paganism. Most ancient religions were built upon some sort of threefold distinction. Deities were always trinities of some kind or consisted of successive emanation in threes.

In India we find the doctrine of the divine trinity called "Tri-murti" (Three-forms) consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. It is an inseparable unity though three in form. Worshipers are told to

worship them as one deity. Such concepts posed no problem to the logic of an ancient Indian worshipper since they were already used to worshipping gods with the body of a man and the head of an elephant, or gods with six arms, and so forth.

The Brahmas also have their trinity. In their trinity, Vajrapani, Manjusri, and Avalokitesvara form a divine union of three gods into one god called "Buddha". The citizens of China and Japan also worship Buddha, but they know him as "Fo". When they worship him they say "Fo, is one god but has three forms".

Sir William Jones says: "Very respectable natives have assured me,

that one or two missionaries have been absurd enough to in their zeal

for the conversion of the Gentiles, to urge that the Hindoos were even

now almost Christians; because their Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa

(Siva), were no other than the Christian Trinity". Bible myths and

their parallels in other religions, p. 370.

An ancient Indian sculpture embodying a three-headed "god" is depicted in Mr. Doane's book (page 371), it was taken from "a very ancient granite" in the museum at the "Indian house" and was dug

from the ruins of a temple in the island of Bombay.

The ancient Egyptians also worshipped a trinity. Their symbol of a wing, a globe, and a serpent is supposed to have stood for the different attributes of their god.

The Greeks also had their trinities. When making their sacrifices to their gods, they would sprinkle holy water on the alter THREE times, they would then sprinkle the people THREE times also. Frankincense was then taken with THREE fingers and strewed upon the alter THREE times. All of this was done because the oracle had proclaimed that all sacred things ought to be in THREES. Remember that the philosophy of these people (The Greeks) is what was primarily responsible for defining the Christian "Trinitarian" nature of God. This was done through the writings of the great Greek philosopher Plato regarding his "Logos" ("word"). Further, remember that the Gospels of the Bible were named the "Greek Gospels" for a reason; because they were written in their language and based upon their philosophy (see previous articles).

T. W. Doane says: "The works of Plato were extensively studied by the Church Fathers, one of whom joyfully recognizes in the great teacher, the schoolmaster who, in the fullness of time, was destined to educate the heathen for Christ, as Moses did the Jews. The celebrated passage :

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God"

is a fragment of some Pagan treatise on the Platonic philosophy, evidently written by Irenaeus. It is quoted by Amelius, a Pagan philosopher as strictly applicable to the Logos, or Mercury, the Word, apparently as an honorable testimony borne to the Pagan deity by a barbarian........We see then that the title "Word" or "Logos", being applied to Jesus, is another piece of Pagan amalgamation with Christianity. It did not receive its authorized Christian form until the middle of the second century after Christ. The ancient pagan Romans worshipped a Trinity. An oracle is said to have declared that there was 'First God, then the Word, and with them the Spirit'. Here we see the distinctly enumerated, God, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, in ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of this capital - that of Jupiter Capitolinus - was dedicated to three deities, which three deities were honored with joint worship".

From Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions, pp. 375-376.

Trinities were not confined to these groups alone, but the Persians, the Assyrians, the Phenicians, the Scandanavians, the Druids, the inhabitants of Siberia, the ancient Mexicans, the Peruvians, and many

others, all worshipped "Trinitarian" pagan deities long before the council of Nicea of 325 AD. officially recognized this to be God's "true" nature.


Let us now move on to the "birthday of Jesus", Christmas. Jesus (pbuh) is commonly considered to have been born on the 25th of December. However, it is common knowledge among Christian scholars that he was not born on this day. It is well known that the first Christian churches held their festival in May, April, or January. Scholars of the first two centuries AD. even differ in which year he

was born. Some believing that he was born fully twenty years before the current accepted date. So how was the 25th of December selected as the birthday of Jesus (pbuh)?.

Grolier's encyclopedia says: "Christmas is the feast of the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated on December 25.... Despite the beliefs about Christ that the birth stories expressed, the church did not observe a festival for the celebration of the event until the 4th century.... since 274, under the emperor Aurelian, Rome had celebrated the feast of the "Invincible Sun" on December 25. In the Eastern Church, January 6, a day also associated with the winter solstice, was initially preferred. In

course of time, however, the West added the Eastern date as the feast of the Epiphany, and the East added the Western date of Christmas"

So who else celebrated the 25th of December as the birth day of their gods before it was agreed upon as the birth day of Jesus (pbuh)?. Well, there are the people of India who rejoice, decorate their houses with garlands, and give presents to their friends on this day. The people of China also celebrate this day and close their shops. The pagan god Buddha is believed to have been born on this day when the "Holy Ghost" descended on his virgin mother Maya. The great savior and god of the Persians, Mithras, is also believed to have been born on the 25th of December long before the coming of Jesus (pbuh). The Egyptians celebrated this day as the birth day of their great savior

Horus, the Egyptian god of light and the son of the "virgin mother" and "queen of the heavens" Isis. Osiris, god of the dead and the underworld in Egypt, the son of "the holy virgin", again was believed to have been born on the 25th of December.

The Greeks celebrated the 25th of December as the birthday of Hercules, the son of the supreme god of the Greeks, Zeus, through the mortal woman Alcmene. Bacchus, the god of wine and revelry among the Romans (known among the Greeks as Dionysus) was also born on this day.

Adonis, revered as a "dying-and-rising god" among the Greeks, miraculously was also born on the 25th of December. His worshipers held him a yearly festival representing his death and resurrection, in midsummer. The ceremonies of his birth day are recorded to have taken place in the same cave in Bethlehem which is claimed to have been the birth place of Jesus (pbuh).

The Scandinavians celebrated the 25th of December as the birth day of their god Freyr, the son of their supreme god of the heavens, Odin.

The Romans observed this day as the birth day of the god of the sun, Natalis Solis Invicti ("Birthday of Sol the invincible"). There was great rejoicing and all shops were closed. There was illumination and public games. Presents were exchanged, and the slaves were indulged in great liberties. Remember, these are the same Romans who would later preside over the council of Nicea (325 AD.) which lead to the official Christian recognition of the "Trinity" as the "true" nature of God, and the "fact" that Jesus (pbuh) was born on the 25th of December too.

In Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon says: "The Roman Christians, ignorant of his (Christ's) birth, fixed the solemn festival to the 25th of December, the Brumalia, or Winter Solstice, when the Pagans annually celebrated the birth of Sol" vol. ii, p. 383.

Christmas is not the only Christian festival which was borrowed from ancient paganism and foisted upon the religion of Jesus (pbuh). There is also Easter (see previous articles), the Feast of St. John, the Holy communion, the Annunciation of the virgin, the assumption of the virgin, and many others have their roots in ancient pagan worship. Since we can not get into the details here, therefor, the interested reader is encouraged to read about them in the books mentioned above.

General similarities with paganism:

As we have seen, the common thread among most of these pagan sects is their worship of the sun as their deity and their selection of the Winter Solstice (25th of December) as the time of the birth of their supreme god. The winter Solstice is the time of year when the sun would reach it's last stage of decline and once again begin to rise and become "re-born". This rise would continue until day and night become equal in length. At this point, the god of the sun would appear to be at a stand off with the "prince of darkness". This would occur at the Vernal equinox, or Easter. This situation, however, would not last for long, as the god of the sun would triumph after Easter, and days would become longer than nights.

We notice that the church too received divine "inspiration" that Jesus (pbuh) was born on the 25th of December, and also that he too "triumphed over the prince of darkness" on Easter day, just as the

pagan gods of the Greeks and Romans had done centuries before (Remember, the Pagan Romans were the rulers of the Christians and took it upon themselves to "preserve" Christianity). Let us have a brief look at the popular beliefs of the pagan Gentiles who would later take it upon themselves to spread his religion to the world:


The pagan god Attis was the son of the virgin Nana. He was the "savior" and "only begotten son". His blood was believed to have renewed the fertility of the earth. As such, he was a symbol of immortality. He was believed to have died on March 24th and been resurrected shortly thereafter. Sacramental meals and baptism of blood were features of his church.

Adonis or Tammuz:

He was born of a virgin and was the "savior" of Syria. He died in redemption for mankind and was later resurrected in the spring.

Dionysus or Bacchus:

He was the "only begotten son" of Jupiter, the king of the gods of the Romans and the lord of life and death (For the Greeks, his father was the almighty Zeus). He was named the god of wine and revelry. Dionysus died at the hands of the Titans, who tore him apart, roasted the pieces, and began to eat them. At that point Zeus intervened, saved some of the pieces, and had Apollo bury them at Delphi. There, it was believed, Dionysus arose from the dead.

He said to mankind "It is I who guide you; it is I who protect you, and who save you; I am Alpha and Omega". He was slain for redeeming humanity and was called "the slain one", "the sin bearer", and "the redeemer". In celebrating his festival, his worshippers would observe the "sparagmos": the tearing apart of a live animal, the eating of its flesh, and the drinking of its

blood; participants believed they were in fact partaking of the god's body and blood. Plays were also staged at these festivals. Wine had a central place at his festivals. Does any of this sound familiar?.

Bel or Baal:

He was the sun god of Babylon. The story of his life and his passion play is almost an exact carbon copy of that of Jesus (pbuh). Called the lord of the universe, he was killed by monsters but restored to life. His death and resurrection were celebrated annually as a part of Canaanite fertility rituals.


He was the Egyptian's god of the dead and the underworld, born of the "virgin of the world" on the 29th of December. He preached gentleness and peace. Wine and corn were both his discoveries. He

was betrayed by Typhen, slain and dismembered. He remained in hell for two or three days and three nights. He would be the judge of mankind in a future life.

Mithras or Mithra

He was the sun god of the Persians and the son of a virgin. He was born on the 25th of December. Christmas and Easter were two of the most important festivals of his church. His worshipers observed

baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist supper at which time they would partake of their "God" in the form of bread and wine.


The Indian god Krishna too bears a tremendous resemblance to Jesus (pbuh) in the story of his mission and his divinity. He was the incarnation of the Indian's supreme god Vishnu (the preserver and protector of the world) in the womb of Devaki. Upon his birth, a great chorus of angles proclaimed "In the delivery of this favored woman, nature shall have cause to exalt". His birth was indicated by a star in heaven. Although of royal blood, he was born in a cave. He was

presented with gifts of sandalwood and perfumes. His foster father was told to flee and hide him lest king Kansa might take his life. King Kansa had ordered all male infants born on that night to be slain. One of his first miracles was the healing of a leper. He was later slain and this resulted in an eclipse of the sun and a black circle forming around the moon. Spirits were seen on all sides and he descended into hell, rose again, and ascended into heaven with many people being witnesses to his bodily accent. He will have a "second coming" in the future which his followers continue await. There are countless other similarities with what is known today as "Christianity" even though

his religion was well establish centuries before the birth of Jesus (pbuh). The accounts of Krishna's childhood agree quite closely with the apocryphal accounts of Jesus' childhood. In the ancient epic

poems, Krishna is simply regarded as a great hero, it was not until about the 4th century BC that he was elevated to the position of a god. Is all of this a mere coincidence?.


Both books mentioned above have compiled a very detailed comparison of the legends of both Jesus (pbuh) and Buddha. The similarities are astounding. T.W. Doane has gone so far as to dedicate

an entire chapter to this comparison, including a 48 point side-by-side narration from the time of their birth till the end of their lives on earth. Their conception, birth, mission, miracles, temptation, preaching, worship, prophesies, death, ascension, divineness, judgment of mankind, and many other matters are almost word-for-word exact carbon copies of one another. Dr. Ansari records in his book the following words of the eminent Christian scholar S. M. Melamed:

"Yet the fact remains that Buddhist canons were already known to the Western world before the coming of Jesus. Today hardly any Indologist of note denies the organic connection between the two

redemptive religions. So close is the connection between them that even the details of the miracles recorded between Buddhism and Christianity are the same. Of Buddha, too, it was told that he fed five hundred men with one loaf of bread, that he cured lepers and caused the blind to see".

As far back as 1884, a German historian of religion by the name of Rudolph Seydel published a very detailed study demonstrating that all of the tales, miracles, similes, and proverbs of the Christian Bible have their counterparts in the much more ancient Buddhastic gospel.

The author of "Bible Myths" observes that even though Buddha has been elevated today to the position of God, still, Mr. Doane observes that

"There is no reason to believe that he ever arrogated to himself any higher authority than that of a teacher of religion, but as in modern factions, there were readily found among his followers those

who carried his peculiar tenets much further than their founder. These, not content with lauding during his life-time the noble deeds of their teacher, exalted him, within a quarter of a century after his death to a place among their deities - worshipping as a god one they had known only as a simple hearted, earnest, truth-seeking philanthropist".

Once again, this conforms exactly to the claim of the Qur'an that God was selecting prophets from every nation on earth (not just the Jews) and sending them to their people (and only to their people) to return them to the true worship of God alone, and that after their departure, their followers would not be content with themselves until they had managed after the death of their prophet to totally corrupt what he had come to preach to them and even to go so far as to make this prophet himself the object of their pagan worship (the Qur'an, Fatir (35):24).

We will notice that when ancient poems and writings of such people prove that Buddha started out simply as a "religious teacher" and never claimed for himself divine attributes, then we will readily

conclude that his followers have corrupted his original teachings. However, when the same is discovered in the early Christian writings of the first three centuries AD. regarding Jesus (pbuh) (see previous articles), now these writings are labeled "apocryphal" lies. They "blaspheme the Lord Jesus". "How could anyone ever dare say such a thing about our god Jesus?" they will ask. And this is the exact same response you can expect to get from a worshipper of Buddha. If you show him the writings of the first centuries AD. regarding Jesus, he will be forced to conclude that Jesus (pbuh) was a "religious teacher" and never attempted to promote himself to any higher level of divine

authority. However, he will never accept such claims against his "god" Buddha. Notice how personal prejudice prevents one from accepting what their own logic dictates?.

We have already seen in chapter one how Christian scholars today readily recognize the fact that for the first three hundred years AD., "Christianity" remained a sect within Judaism and that the first fifteen Bishops of Christianity were circumcised Jews who worshipped in the synagogues of the Jews. We have seen how it was only after the introduction of Christianity to the Romans and the official

"Guardianship" of the Roman empire of the religion of Jesus (pbuh) that it began to see many of the "truths" of the mission of Jesus (pbuh) which were hidden from the very first apostles of Jesus (pbuh). We have seen how the "trinity", the birth of Jesus (pbuh) on the 25th of December, the Easter festival and many other founding doctrines of Christianity were not "recognized" to be the "truth" until after the religion of Jesus (pbuh) was "adopted" by those people who for many

centuries before that had been spoon fed doctrines of "trinity", "savior from sin", "incarnation of the almighty", "death and resurrection", Christmas and Easter, "three days and three nights in hell", "only begotten of the almighty", "killed by the enemy", and many other matters which were later "inspired" to them by God in order to be "clarified" in the Bible so that they could be seen clearly.

Sadly enough, once all of this detailed and irrefutable evidence has been presented, by the Christian's own scholars, in support of the fact that all of these matters were acts of pagan worship and belief

centuries before the coming of Jesus (pbuh), even with all of this, the adamant orthodox will ever manage to find a way out. "It is quite simple really", they will explain, "All of these countless pagan cults from all over the earth must have had prior knowledge of the coming of Jesus and inserted the story of his life into pagan mythology centuries before his actual arrival".

Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") can not force a person to use their mind. They can only present the evidence. It is up to that person themselves whether they will choose to accept the facts or not. The great and elect messenger of Allah, Jesus (peace be upon him), is innocent of these pagan innovations which have been foisted upon him after his departure by those who do not fear God. He was a true messenger of God and would never dare to say otherwise. God is one god. He is indivisible and inseparable. There is no God but He. He has no sons nor any equal. He does not hold mankind responsible for the sin of others, but only for their own worship. And He alone shall be the final judge of all of mankind on the day of judgment.

There are many other parallels that could be brought up in this comparison. However, we can not get into the details here, and therefore, we leave it up to the interested reader to read about them in the books mentioned above.

I hope that yu find the information presented in this series of articles both informative and useful. I ask Allah almighty that he guide us all to His good will and his paradise. Thank you all for your interest. I close this series of articles with the following quotations.


Misheal ibn Abdullah Al-Kadhi

The Qur'an says: "And if it be said unto them: Follow that which Allah has revealed,

they say: Nay, but we follow that wherein we found our fathers.

What! Even though the devil was inviting them to the torture of the fire?"

The Qur'an, Lukman(31):21.

The Bible says: "Many will say to me (Jesus) in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity". Matthew 7:22-23

The Bible also tells us that Jesus says: "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men". Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7

The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the Qur'an:

In the 15-part series of articles titled "Mankind's corruption of the Bible --proof", we had alluded to the Dead Sea Scrolls in the quotation by Mr. F. F. Bruce. Even with his staunch defense of the

infallibility of the New and Old Testament and the impossibility of mankind having ever having made the slightest change to their text, even with that, we find him saying "It is worth mentioning here that

striking affinities of thought and language have been recognized between the Gospel and the Qumran texts. These affinities must not be exaggerated; the Qumran literature comes no where near presenting us with such a figure as the Jesus of this Gospel (John)"

What is so noteworthy of this quote? Well, to answer this question we need to begin with the story of the scrolls themselves:

In 1947 a group of children stumbled upon the first set of scrolls in a cave on the shores of the dead sea. These scrolls were imediately identified as the work of a very devout sect of the Jewish community that lived centuries before the birth of Jesus (pbuh). Hershel Shanks says in his book Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: "Such was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, manuscripts a thousand years older than the oldest known Hebrew texts of the Bible, manuscripts many of

which were written a hundred years before the birth of Jesus and at least one of which may have been written almost three hundred years before the journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethleham" (Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hershel Shanks, pp. 7-8).

An immediate frantic search ensued through the remaining caves in the region in order to find what other ancient scrolls could be discovered therein. A small group of "international" scholars in Israel

were given exclusive access to them and the rest of the world was all but totally barred from gaining even the slightest glimpse of the texts (Prof. Eisenman observes that one of the major stumbling blocks for the publication of the scrolls was that "in the first place, the team was hardly international") . Prof. Robert Eisenman was one of the key players in the drama that finally lead to the release of the scrolls. In his book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" we read:

"In the spring of 1986, at the end of his stay in Jerusalem, Professor Eisenman went with the British scholar, Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield, to see one of the Israeli officials responsible for this - an intermediary on behalf of the Antiquities Department (now 'Authority') and the International Team and the Scrolls Curator at Israel Museum. They were told in no uncertain terms 'You will not see the Scrolls in your lifetimes'".

This stung them into action, and as a result of this statement, a massive effort was launched and five years later, through a whirlwind of media publicity, absolute access to the scrolls was attained. Prof.

Eisenman eventually received 1800 pictures of the previously unpublished scrolls. The book goes on to describe how "Eisenman was preparing the Facsimile Edition of all unpublished plates. This

was scheduled to appear the following spring through E. J. Brill in Leiden, Holland. Ten days, however, before it's scheduled publication in April 1991, after pressure was applied by the International Team, the publisher inexplicably withdrew and Hershel Shanks (author of Biblical Archiology Review) and the Biblical Archeology Society to their credit stepped in to fill the breach". However, finally in September 1991, the archives were officially opened and two months later the

2-volume Facsimile Edition was published.

We have already read the words of Mr. Tom Harpur in the preface to his book:

"The most significant development since 1986 in this regard has been the discovery of the title "Son of God" in one of the Qumran papyri (Dead Sea Scrolls) used in relation to a person other than

Jesus.....this simply reinforces the argument made there that to be called the Son of God in a Jewish setting in the first century is not by any means the same as being identical with God Himself."

For Christ's Sake, pp. xii.

So why don't we study these scrolls in a little more detail and see what else we can learn ?

The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of fragments from many manuscripts, however, some of the most interesting among them are the Pesher texts. The Pesher texts are strings of interpretations of Biblical verses compiled by the most knowledgeable among the Jews. The word itself is derived from the Hebrew root word p-sh-r, which means, "to explain". The texts consist of Biblical passages followed by the words pesher ha-davar "the interpretation of the matter is", and then the interpretation itself.

The basis of all of these texts is the notion that all of history is preordained by God. In other words, God is not restricted to looking at matters as "past", "present", or "future", rather, all of time is an

open book to God (please read the verification of this concept in Islamic belief in chapter 9). Indeed, this is the essence of how prophets receive "prophesies", because God "sees" the future.

So, remembering that we are henceforth quoting from texts that have been carbon dated at about 100 years or more before the coming of Jesus (pbuh), and that this dating is confirmed by literary analysis, and that the authors were a sect of very religious and devout Jews, considering all of this let us see what they have to say:

Those who have studies the scrolls have noticed a common theme prevalent throughout these manuscripts, that is, most of the pesher texts prophesise the comming of a "Teacher of Righteousness" who will be sent by God to the Jews. This "Teacher of Rightousness" will be opposed by the "Teacher of Lies" and the "Wicked Priest". These scrolls also predict the coming of TWO messiahs. These two messiahs are referred to as a priestly and a temporal messiah. What we had here was a society of very devout Jews who were convinced that the time of the coming of the two messiahs was at hand, therefore, they set about preparing for their advent by detaching themselves from the mainstream society, and dedicating their lives to their worship and the preparation for their imminent arrival.

In The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, by Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, we read that the early scrolls spoke of TWO messiahs, but that later on, the communities of the Jews began to combine them into one messiah: "As we have suggested, contrary to the well-known 'two-Messiah' theory of early Qumran scholarship, these references to the 'Messiah of Aaron and Israel' in the Damascus Document are singular not plural... and one possible explanation for it is that it is evoking a Messiah with both priestly and kingly implications, like the somewhat similar recitations of Hebrews"

(The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, p. 162).

"According to the dominant view in the sectarian texts from Qumran, two messiahs were to lead the congregation in the End of Days, one priestly, and the other lay"

(Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, pp. 321-322).

The Jews had prophesies of two messiahs. The first was best known to them for his "religious" or "preistly" works which he would perform. The second was best known to them for his "kingly" works. These two prophesies refer to Jesus (pbuh) and Muhammad (pbuh). Jesus (pbuh) was best know for his "preistly" works. However, he never lead an army, he never established a kingdom or a government, nor did he call his followers to wage war. Quite the opposite, he always called to peace and submissiveness and to leave the rule of the land to others (Matthew 22:21). He told his followers that he yet had many things to teach them but they could not bear them yet and that another would be

coming after him who would teach them the complete truth (John 16:7-14). Muhammad (pbuh) too began his ministry preaching submissivness and passiveness. However, his ministry was allowed by

God almighty to mature to a point where it was able to defend itself and establish justice in the earth and abolish evil. His followers fought many wars in the name of God and the Islamic empire finally

stretched from China to Spain. Even those who did not follow Muhammad (pbuh) knew him well. However, what did they know him for? They knew him for his "kingly" actions and not for the

"priestly" side of him that his followers knew.

"And fight against them until persecution is no more and religion is for God alone.

But if they desist then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers"


"Those unto whom We gave the Scripture recognize him (Muhammad) as they recognize their sons. But verilly, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it"

The Qur'an, al-Baqarah(2):146

Over time, the prophesies of the Jews began to become a little blurred, and this in addition to the continuous persecution of many nations towards the Jews eventually lead to their blending of these prophesies into one single prophesy and their aggrandizing of this one all-conquering wondrous event that would finally relieve them of their persecution and pave the way for them to march forth conquering all nations, and establishing themselves as the protectors of the kingdom of God. For this reason, when we read the Gospel of Barnabas, we find that when the Jews ask Jesus (pbuh) whether he is "the messiah" he responds to them that he is not "the messiah" that they are expecting. This is because he understood their question. They were not asking him for his title, rather, they wanted to know whether he was the one who would finally fulfill all of their prophesies of leadership, power, and grandeur that they had been waiting for for so many centuries. For this reason, he told them that he was not "the messiah", but that "the Messiah" they were waiting for would not come until later. He was referring to the SECOND messiah in their prophesies (please go back and read the very first part of the series mentioned above, where we read about the Jews expectations of THREE prophesies to be fulfilled).

Lawrence Schiffman says regarding Pesher Habakkuk: "It (Pesher Habakkuk) describes the struggle between the Teacher of Righteousness and his opponents - the Man of Lies (also termed the

Spouter or Preacher of Lies) and the Wicked Priest. The Spouter is pictured as heading a community. The dispute between the teacher and the Spouter is seems to have been based on matters of religious

interpretation and law. The wicked priest is said to have begun his rule in truth but then to have abandoned the way of truth. He then persecutes the Teacher, confronting him on the holiest day of the year, the Day of Atonement".

(Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 228).

This prophesy also continues in Pesher Psalms: "This text also mentions the familiar dramatis personae: the Teacher of Righteousness, termed 'the priest'; the wicked priest; and the Man of

Lies. The Wicked Priest persecuted the Teacher and sought to kill him. The man of lies lead people astray".

(Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 229).

What we begin to see in all of this is the story of the coming of Jesus (pbuh), his selection of Judas as one of the apostles, the deviance of Judas from the truth, how a sect of the Jews persecuted Jesus (pbuh), how this sect tried to deceive the masses and differed with Jesus (pbuh) regarding the truth of God's message, and finally, how they schemed with Judas to kill Jesus (pbuh). The Teacher of

Righteousness is thus a reference to Jesus (pbuh); the "priestly" messiah. The Wicked Priest is a reference to Judas, and the Spouter of Lies is most likely the leader of the "chief priests and Pharisees" who persecuted Jesus (pbuh) and are mentioned so often in the Bible.

Many Christian scholars have snatched up these prophesies in order to prove the validity of their claim that Jesus (pbuh) was indeed sent by God and that the Jews are required to follow him. However, they have been thwarted in their attempts by one other quite amazing piece of evidence that the Jews continually manage to refute their claims with, specifically, that the Dead Sea Scrolls claim that the coming messiah will be persecuted and that the Wicked Priest will try to kill him, but that the Wicked Priest WILL NOT BE SUCCESSFUL AND THAT IT IS HE WHO WILL RECEIVE THE FATE HE WISHED FOR THE MESSIAH.

"The Wicked Priest went so far as to lie in ambush for the Teacher of Righteousness. In interpreting Psalms 37:32, "The Wicked watches for the righteous, seeking to put him to death," the text states: 'Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest who watched out for the Teacher of Righteousness and sought to put him to death'"

(Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 233).

So Judas will try to kill Jesus (pbuh).

"The Wicked Priest began his career with the support of the sectarians, but he quickly lost his way and began to transgress in order to increase his wealth".

(Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 233).

Remember Matthew 26:15 "And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver".

"Various theories have sought to identify the Teacher with Jesus, claiming that he was executed by the Wicked Priest. Had that been the case, the text would not have gone on to explain how God took

vengeance against the priest by turning him over to the 'ruthless ones of the nations'. And according to this text, the teacher certainly survived the ambush. Indeed the entire passage is an interpretation of Psalms where the text continues, "The Lord will not abandon him (the Righteous), into his hand (the Wicked); He will not let him (the Righteous) be condemned in judgment (by the wicked)." (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, pp. 233-234).

The author goes on to quote Pesher Habakkuk with regard to the Wicked Priest's intentions and his punishment. He says: "Ultimately, however, the Wicked Priest was punished: '.. because of his

transgression against the Teacher of Righteousness and the men of his council, God gave him over to the hands of his enemies to afflict him with disease so as to destroy him with mortal suffering because he had acted wickedly against His chosen one'. The Wicked Priest's enemies tortured him which represents divine punishment for his attacks on the Teacher of Righteousness. The sufferings of the Wicked Priest are even more graphically described in another passage: 'and all his enemies arose and abused him in order for his suffering to be fit punishment for his evil. And they inflicted upon him horrible diseases, and acts of vengeance in the flesh of his body'. The one who suffered was the Wicked Priest, not the Teacher of Righteousness. The enemies of the Wicked Priest, the nation against whom he had made war, are said to have tortured him, so that his life ended in mortal disease and affliction." (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 234).

If we read the Gospel of Barnabas, we will find that when Judas came with the Roman troops in order to betray Jesus (pbuh), God raised Jesus (pbuh) unto Him and saved him. He then made Judas look and even speak like Jesus (pbuh) so that the Romans dragged him (Judas) away with them kicking and screaming that he was not Jesus (pbuh) but Judas. Even the Apostles were totally bewildered.

After the Romans had their fill afflicting Judas with all manner of abuse and torture, he was finally taken to trial. By now he had totally given up hope of ever being believed. So now when he was asked, "art thou Jesus?" He replied "Thou sayest". In other words, "you will not believe me if I say otherwise, so why fight it any more". His enemies (the Romans) then took him, mocked him, kicked him, cut him, spat on him, humiliated him, and tortured him. Finally, they put him up on the cross. It appears, however, that shortly after they took him down, he disappeared from his tomb (maybe to live in disease and torment and die later on if he was not already dead). The Gospel of Baranabas then goes on to describe how Jesus (pbuh) returned to the apostles to tell them of how God had saved him from the hands of the Jews and the Romans and how the traitor (Judas) was taken instead.

This is exactly what the Qur'an has been saying for 1400 years now; that Jesus (pbuh) was not forsaken by God to be killed by the conspiracy of the Jews and Judas, but that "it was made to appear so to them":

"But when Jesus became conscious of their disbelief, he cried:

Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah?

The disciples said: We will be Allah's helpers. We believe in Allah, and bear you witness that we

have surrendered (unto Him). Our Lord! We believe in that which You have revealed and we follow him whom You have sent. Enroll us among those who witness (to the truth).

And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them):

and Allah is the best of schemers"

The Qur'an, A'l-Umran(3):52-54.

"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger, and they slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them;

and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; for of a surety they slew him not"

The Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):157

The scrolls then go on to describe how "Kittim" (the Roman empire) and the kings of Greece would both try to take Jerusalem (the symbol of the faithful), but that it would be Kittim (the Romans) who would finally be successful. Remember how in part 14 of the previous series we described the stages of how the Roman empire eventually took control of the whole Christian religion and "protected" it and "spread" it?

"Some texts also speak about an eschatological prophet who will announce the coming of the messiah, a figure similar to Elijah in the rabinnic tradition"

(Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 323).

Once again, please read part one of the previous series where it is made abundantly clear that not only were the Jews expecting a prophet to "clear the way" for Jesus (pbuh) and "announce" him (this was John the Baptist), but they also expected a second messiah to come after Jesus (pbuh).

Referring to the manuscript titled The Rule of the Community, verse 9:11-12, Mr. Schiffman says: "this text unquestionably refers to two messiahs who will be announced by an eschatological prophet. Based on a the cave 4 manuscripts of Rule of the Community, the original publication team argued that this passage was added to the text later in the history of the sect. However, the evidence in these manuscripts does not sufficiently support such an assertion. As far as we can tell, the two-messiah concept was part of Rule of the Community from the time it was composed".

(Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 324).

"And when there came unto them (the Jews) a Scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession though before that they were invoking Allah (for the coming of Muhammad) in order to gain victory over those who disbelieved, then when there came unto them that which they had recognized, they disbelieved in it. So let the curse of Allah be on disbelievers"

The Qur'an, Al-Baqarah(2):89

The Dead Sea Scrolls make mention of many more quite amazing and illuminating prophesies and parallels with the teachings of the Qur'an and Islam. There are also many parallels with the historical series of events presented in this book, such as the reference to the "seekers of smooth things" (simplifying the law of the religion) which sound amazingly similar to the description of Paul and his followers who "simplified" the religion of Jesus after his departure and removed all obligation from it all the while claiming that his authority came directly from "visions" of Jesus (pbuh). He is even quoted, while preaching this removal of obligation, as saying "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the SIMPLICITY that is in Christ" 2 Corinthians 11:3

There is so much more that could be said about the Dead Sea Scrolls and their confirmation of the Qur'an and the mission of Muhammad, however, that will have to be left to a future article where, God willing, many more detailed examples of this sort shall be analyzed in detail.

Misheal Al-Kadhi

Back to Answering Christianity

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube