Mankind's Corruption of the bible - 2

The following is a reprint of an article I sent a while back. It seems to fit in nicely in the current sequence of articlesso I will re-submit it now. How to prove to a Jew that the "Torah" is corrupt and not the original word of Moses (pbuh)

Allah (SWT) says:

"And argue not with the people of the book unless it be in (a way) which is better (than mere arguing), except with such of them that do wrong, and say (to them):

'We believe in that which had been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more"))" Al-Ankaboot(29):46.

The "people of the Book" includes Jews. Remember that. Even though Allah (SWT) has told us of the hatred they hide in their hearts, He has not command us to hate and kill every single Jew we meet simply because he is a Jew. We are better than that. We serve a higher purpose. For this reason, I am going to provide a very devastating argument against them in order to assist them in seeing the corruption of their forefathers and see how their God is even yet trying to save them and guide them to Islam. I cannot emphasize this point enough, please be respectful and receptive. Be willing to take

abuse and respond with kindness. If one of them were to be guided, it will be to your benefit. It will take some time for you to read and digest the following proof, but once you have done so, no Jew will

(inshallah, of course) ever be able to respond to you.

Note: Please forward this message to all Islamic nets you may haveaccess to so that they may benifit from it.

Now the proof:

Did mankind tamper with the Old Testament?:

"And because of their breaking their covenant,

We have cursed them and made hard their hearts.

They change words from their places and have abandoned a good part of the message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them and overlook(their misdeed). Verily! Allah loves the kindly". The Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):13.

"O Messenger!(Mohammad) Do no be grieved by those who vie with one another in the race to disbelief, of such as say with their mouths: "We believe" but their hearts believe not, and of the Jews: of them are those who listen eagerly to lies -listening to others who have not come to you.

They change the words from their places; they say: If you are given this then take it, but if you are not given this then beware!

He whom Allah dooms unto sin, you (by your efforts) will avail him naught against Allah.

Those are they for whom the will of Allah is that He cleanse not their hearts; for them there is a disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a great torment". The Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):44.

The Jews have, from one generation to another, handed down their Old Testament, as the faultless words of Moses (pbuh) and the prophets. The "Old testament" is made up of the "Torah" (Tawrat),

(which is also called "the Pentateuch"), and the "books of the prophets".

The "Torah" consists of the first five books of the Old Testament. They are believed by the Jews to have been written by Moses (pbuh). These five books are: "Genesis", "Exodus", "Leviticus", "Numbers", and "Deuteronomy". After the Christians decided to incorporate the Old Testament into their Bible, they began to study these books in great detail..

For countless ages, the only book of history available to Christians and Jews was the Old Testament. When someone wanted to know what happened in the past, they would go back and study the Old

Testament to find the answer. New theories about history literally lived and died by their conformance to what the Old Testament taught. Then the discrepancies began to be noticed.

Once mankind began to study the OT in detail, comparing the various passages which referred to the same topic in order to obtain as much detail as possible, they began to notice conflicting accounts of many matters as well as other problems. For instance, in the eleventh century, it was noticed that the list of Edomite kings in Genesis 36 names kings who lived long after Moses was dead. Then people

began to notice such statements as "to this day" something is true, which implies that the author was looking back at these matters through history and has seen that they have endured.

After this, it was noticed that in the beginning verses of the OT manuscripts, Deuteronomy says: "These are the words that Moses spoke to the children of Israel across the Jordan...".

They noticed that the words "across the Jordan" refers to people who are on the opposite side of the Jordan river to the author. But the alleged author, Moses himself, was never supposed to have been in Israel in his life.

It was also noticed that Moses speaks in detail in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 about how he died and where he was buried. Moses also calls himself the most humble man on earth in Numbers 12:3 (would the

most humble man on earth call himself the most humble man on earth?). In Deuteronomy 34:10 we read

"And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses".

This also implies that the author was looking back at Moses through history a long time after Moses's death. Now the flood gates were opened and countless other discrepancies began to show up.

In the beginning, it was claimed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Five "books of Moses") and anyone contesting this fact would be severely punished or worse. However, when these matters started to

become well known, it became necessary to find explanations. For example, the first explanation presented for the verses referring to the death of Moses was that Moses (pbuh) had written his books, but that later prophets, as well as "inspired" scribes (who could also be considered prophets), had later on added on a couple of lines here and there. In this manner the text remained 100% the "inspiration" of God. This explanation, however, did not stand up to scrutiny because the style and literary characteristics of the verses are the same throughout. For instance, the verses which describe the death and burial of Moses exhibit the same literary characteristics as the verses before and after them. Thus, they must have been written by the same person.

The Doublets:

After this, the trend became to explain any and all discrepancies through abstractism and elaborate interpretations, or through the introduction of additional narrative details that did not appear in the

biblical text. Around this time, a startling new discovery was made. It was noticed that the stories in the five books of Moses were made up of doublets. A doublet is a case of one story being told twice.

Even in the English translation of the Bible, the doublets are noticeable. These doublets have been masterfully intertwined so that they become one narrative.

For example, there are doublets of the creation of the world, the covenant between God and Abraham, the naming of Isaac, Abraham's claim that his wife Sarah was his sister, the story of Jacob's journey to

Mesopotamia, Jacob's revelation at Beth-El,.......and on and on. In many cases these doublets actually contradict one another. The apologists once again jumped up with an explanation in hand. They

claimed that the doublets were complementary and not contradictive. It was claimed that they came to teach us a lesson by their "apparent" contradiction. However, this claim did not hold water for long. The reason is that not long after, it was discovered that when the doublets were separated into two separate accounts, each account was almost always consistent about the name of the deity that it used. One would always refer to God as Yahweh/Jehovah. This document was called "J". The other always referred to Him as Elohim(God). It was called "E". There were various other literary characteristics which were then found to be common to one group or the other. It became obvious that someone had taken two separate accounts of the ministry of Moses (pbuh), cut them up, and then woven them together quite masterfully so that their actions would not be discovered until countless centuries later.

Once this startling discovery was made, the Old Testament was once again placed under the scrutiny of scholars and it was discovered that the Pentateuch was not made up of two major source documents but FOUR. It was discovered that some stories were not only doublets, but triplets. Additional literary characteristics were identified for these documents. The third source was called P (for Priestly), and the fourth D (for Deuteronomy). In the end it was concluded that the

first four "books of Moses" were the result of the merging of three separate accounts which were called J, E, and P, and the book of Deuteronomy was found to be a separate account which was called

D. The person (or persons) who collected and intertwined these sources was called "The Redactor". Let us have a look at an example of these doublets from Genesis 6:5 to 8:22. The Jehovah(J) text is in


Genesis 6:

Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Genesis 6:7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have

made them.

Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.


















Genesis 7:

Genesis 7:1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Genesis 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Genesis 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Genesis 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.


Genesis 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.



Genesis 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.



Genesis 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.





Genesis 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

Genesis 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.



Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.


Genesis 8:


Genesis 8:2 THE FOUNTAINS ALSO OF THE DEEP AND THE WINDOWS OF HEAVEN WERE STOPPED, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

Genesis 8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: AND AFTER THE END OF THE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DAYS THE WATERS WERE ABATED.




Genesis 8:6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:


Genesis 8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

Genesis 8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

Genesis 8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

Genesis 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

Genesis 8:12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.

Genesis 8:13 AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE SIX HUNDREDTH AND FIRST YEAR, IN THE FIRST MONTH, THE FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH, THE WATERS WERE DRIED UP FROM OFF THE EARTH: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.







Genesis 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Genesis 8:21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease

Well known today:

All of this has become so firmly established in accepted scientific fact that even Grolier's encyclopedia (Academic American encyclopedia) now readily admits it. Under the heading "Divisions of the Old

Testament" it states:

"The Pentateuch is based on four principal sources. The oldest, J, was perhaps written in Judah, the southern kingdom, about 950 BC. Between 900 and 750, another version from Israel, the northern kingdom, was woven in; this is called EPHRAIM (E). In the 7th century BC, Deuteronomy, or most of it (D), was compiled. About 550 BC, during the exile, the final edition of the Torah added a priestly source (P), some parts of which are very old".

Mr. Richard Elliot Friedman is a professor on the faculty of the University of California, San Diego. He earned his Doctorate in Hebrew Bible at Harvard University. He is one of many scholars who

have attempted to critically study these "source" documents of the "five books of Moses" in order to arrive at the identity of the authors, the time period when each was written, the motives for writing each narrative, and other information. In his book "Who wrote the Bible", Prof. Friedman presents strong evidence that each "source document" was written by a person or persons who, while on the face of it seem to narrate the same stories, in actuality had distinctly different goals they wished to achieve.

According to Mr. Friedman's research, each source emphasizes a certain branch of the Jews, their nobility, birth right, and closeness to God. Sometimes at the price of other branches of the Jews. For

instance, J was written by descendants of Judah, E came from descendants of Israel, and P was written by a priest from the descendants of Aaron. According to Mr. Friedman, the P (Priestly) source seems to be particularly interested in priests, their lineage, their being the only ones who are allowed to sacrifice to God, the importance of sacrifice to God, and the surprising absence of all stories wherein anyone not of their lineage made a sacrifice that was accepted by God (for instance the sacrifice of the sons of Adam is missing from this narrative). It also contains stories of how all those who attempted to make sacrifices to God without the agency of an Aaronid priest were killed by God.

The author goes on to show how in J and E we can find similar emphasis on one tribe of the Jews over the other. For instance, on pages 64-65 he shows how both the J and E documents attempt to give the birthright of Jacob to their own forefathers. He also shows how in the E version, Joseph is saved by his brother Ruben (the firstborn of Israel), while in the J version it is Judah who saves him. The author presents countless other proofs of these claims.

The JE texts emphasize the prophet (Moses). They depict Aaron as having fashioned the golden calf. They also describe Aaron and his sister Meriam as having criticized Moses and having been chastised by God himself for this. They regularly have God saying "and Yahweh said unto Moses....". The P document (written by Aaronid priests), however, usually states: "and Yahweh said unto Moses and unto Aaron.....". In this document, the staff Moses used to perform his miracles is called "Aaron's staff". In the P document Aaron is also named as the firstborn brother of Moses. Also, as mentioned

previously, in the P text no mention is made of any sacrifices to God whatsoever until the last chapter of Exodus wherein we find the story of Aaron's sacrifice when he was consecrated as high priest. After

that, all sacrifices are performed by Aaron and his sons. In other words, the author of P gives no precedence for sacrifice for anyone other than an Aaronid priest. There are even a couple of places in this document which denigrate Moses (pbuh). They depicts Moses (pbuh) as sinning and Aaron suffering for Moses's sin.

The rest of the books of the Jews:

Well, what about the rest of the Old Testament?. Are the remaining books of the Old Testament known to have been preserved from change since the time of their first writing and truly to be the words of the claimed authors?. No!. Once again, Groliers encyclopedia tells us:

".....Joshua tells of a thorough conquest of Canaan, but Judges contains traditions of the Hebrew tribes in the period before the monarchy that reveal the conquest as partial. The books of Samuel are about the founding of the monarchy under SAUL and David and contain a magnificent early source for the life of David, probably written about 961-22 BC. ALL THE ABOVE BOOKS HAVE BEEN EXTENSIVELY EDITED BY WRITERS WHO SHARED THE THEOLOGY OF THE D SOURCE".

There is much more which could be said about these matters, however, we will leave it up to the interested student to obtain a copy of Mr. Freidman's book and read his comments. Fourteen hundred

years ago, back when it was a blasphemy of the highest order punishable by death to dare allege that the claimed authors of the Bible were not the true authors, e.g. that Moses (pbuh) did not write

the "books of Moses", the Qur'an was sent down upon Mohammad (pbuh) by God almighty with the claim that "the people of the Book" (Jews and Christians) had changed the book of God. Mohammad (pbuh) further claimed that he was sent with the true religion of God which was sent down upon Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them all). The Jews and Christians responded that Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") were ignorant savages who had concocted their own religion by copying Judaism and Christianity, and only an insane person would ever make such allegations. We invite the reader to judge for themselves who was telling the truth.

The books of the Christians:

Is all of this restricted to the Old Testament?. No!. Christian scholars today call the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the "Synoptic" (One eyed) Gospels. This is because they all seem to have had access to a common source document they were working from when they wrote their Gospels. This source document is called 'Q '. Now they are beginning to recognize that the alleged authors are not the true authors. Similarly, countless verses of the Gospel of John, as well as other historical discrepancies, also go to show that John did not write the Gospel of John. Some scholars are now beginning to suspect that 'Q' may indeed be the Gospel of Barnabas. It is much larger than the others, by all measures it is an authentic Gospel (previous post), and it contains all of the stories

contained in these three Gospels without the contradictions found therein.

"Of the Jews are those change words from their places and say: "We hear (your words O Mohammad) and disobey; hear you as one who hears not" and "give us concession" with a twist of their tongues and as a mockery of religion(Islam). But if only they had said: "We hear and we obey" and "Do make us understand" it would have been better for them and more upright. But Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except a few".

The Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):46.

"Then woe to those who write the book (of God) with their own hands and then say:

'This is from Allah', to traffic with it for a miserable price.

Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby"

The holy Qur'an Al-Bakarah(2):79

A different approach:

Specific contradictions in the books of the Jews:

The following are pairs of verses which contradict one another in the books of the Jews:

2 Samuel 8:4(7 HUNDRED horsemen)

1 Chronicles 18:4(7 THOUSAND horsemen)

1 Chronicles 21:12(THREE years famine)

2 Samuel 24:13(SEVEN years famine)

Deuteronomy 2:19 & Deuteronomy 2:37(Moses deprived land of Ammon)

Joshua 13:24-25(Moses gives land of Ammon as inheritance)

2 Samuel 24:9(800,000+500,000)

1 Chronicles 21:5(1,100,000+470,000)

2 Chronicles 36:9(EIGHT years, three months +10 days)

2 Kings 24:8 (EIGHTEEN years, three months)

2 Samuel 10:18(700, 40,000 HORSEMEN)

1 Chronicles 19:18(7000, 40,000 FOOTMEN)

1 Kings 7:26(TWO thousand baths)

2 Chronicles 4:5(THREE thousand baths)

2 Samuel 6:23(Michal had NO children)

2 Samuel 21:8(Michal had FIVE sons)

Genesis6:3(mankind shall not live past 120 years)

Genesis 11:10-32 (500,438,433,464,...etc.)

2 Chronicles 9:25(4,000 stalls)

1 Kings 4:26(40,000 stalls)

Isaiah 40:28 (God does not FAINT nor WEARY)

Exodus 31:17 (God RESTED, and was REFRESHED.)

Genisis 1: (God creates Plants, THEN animals, THEN man and woman.)

Genesis 2: (God creates man, THEN plants, THEN animals, THEN woman)

Ezekiel 45 and Ezekiel 46 (DOCTRINES of offerings and sacrifices)

Numbers 28 and Numbers 29 (CONTRADICTORY DOCTRINES of offerings and sacrifices)

1 Chronicles 8:29-38 (One list of NAMES)

1 Chronicles 9:35-44 (A CONTRADICTORY list of NAMES)

2 Samuel 5 and 2 Samuel 6 (David brought the ark AFTER fighting the Philistines)

1 Samuel 13 and 1 Samuel 14 (David brought the ark BEFORE fighting the Philistines)

Genesis 6:19-20 (Noah was to bring onto the ark "of EVERY living thing of all flesh, TWO of EVERY sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive ....male and female....of fowls....of cattle....of every creeping thing of the earth...").

Genesis 7:2-3 (Noah was to bring onto the ark "Of every CLEAN beast thou shalt take to thee by SEVENS, the male and his female: and of beasts that are NOT CLEAN by TWO, the male and his

female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female...").

2 Samuel 8:1 ("David took METHEGAMMAH out of the hand of the Philistines").

1 Chronicles 18:1 ("David...took GATH and her towns out of the hand of the Philistines").

2 Samuel 8:8 ("And from BETAH, and from BEROTHAI, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass").

1 Chronicles 18:8 ("Likewise from TIBHATH, and from CHUN, cities of Hadarezer, brought David very much brass").

2 Samuel 8:10 ("Then Toi sent JORAM his son unto king David")

1 Chronicles 18:10 ("He sent HADORAM his son to king David")

2 Samuel 8:12 ("Of SYRIA, and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek").

1 Chronicles 18:11 ("from EDOM, and from Moab, and from the children of Ammon, and from the Philistines, and from Amalek.

2 Samuel 8:13 ("And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the SYRIANS in the valley of salt, being eighteen thousand men").

1 Chronicles 18:13 ("And he put garrisons in EDOM; and all the EDOMITES became David's servants").

2 Samuel 8:17 ("and SERAIAH was the scribe")

1 Chronicles 18:16 ("and SHAVSHA was scribe")

1 Kings 15:33-16:6 ("In the THIRD year of Asa king of Judah began Baasha the son Ahijah to reign over all Israel in Tirzah, TWENTY FOUR years..... So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was BURIED in Tirzah"). 3+24=27.

2 Chronicles 16:1 ("In the THIRTY SIXTH year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah"). But he died in the twenty seventh year!. Was he resurected?. So how did he invade

Judah 10 years after his death?.

Ezra 2:6 (2812)

Nehemiah 7:11 (2818)

Ezra 2:8 (945)

Nehemiah 7:13 (845)

Ezra 2:12 (1222)

Nehemiah 7:17 (2322)

Ezra 2:15 (454)

Nehemiah 7:20 (655)

Ezra 2:19 (223)

Nehemiah 7:22 (328)

Ezra 2:28 (223)

Nehemiah 7:32 (123)

Inshallah this information will prove useful to all Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more"). Aameen

Your brother,

Misheal A. Al-Kadhi

This is the eighth part in the ongoing series which will, by Allah's will, prove all of the claims of Allah in the Qur'an regarding the Bible. As seen in the past, only the Christian Bible and Christian scholars have been quoted in defense of the position of the Qur'an. We have already proven in past posts that the Torah of the Jews was corrupted by mankind and shown the proof of that. We also exhibited over 73 examples of contradictions in the Bible. Before that, we presented many very detailed prophesies of the coming of Mohammed (pbuh) from the Bible, and we also spoke briefly about how the Bible was "collected" and how to this day Christianity does not know who wrote the books of the Bible or if they were indeed "inspired". A couple of words were also written to show how the Christian's own "Gospel of Barnabas" and "Shepherd of Hermas" confirm all of the claims of the Qur'an even they remained hidden away in the Christian Vatican for centuries.

Let us now move on to a side issue which really has nothing to do with basic doctrine but is without exception always brought up by Christians in their claims against the Qur'an, specifically: women. For this reason it becomes necessary to respectfully quote to them their own Bible so that they may bear the words of their own Bible in mind when they claim that Christianity respects women more than Islam does.

It never ceases to amaze me. Whenever the topic of Islam is brought up among Christians, the first objection that immediately springs into their minds is not the "trinity", "son of God", "attonement"..etc, but first and foremost: "But women are so extremely oppressed in Islam". Even though this topic is usually brought up out of ignorance and in order to distract attention from more fundamental issues of worship such as the "trinity" and the "divine sonship" ...etc., still it seems inevitable to touch on this subject even if only very briefly because of it's importance.

The problem is twofold: First of all, these people usually only have a very superficial knowledge of what Islam is, and secondly, they are ignorant of their own religion.

People who make these allegations against Islam can usually be described by one or all of the following:

1) The have gotten their information from a non-Muslim biased media which adores sensationalism and has no use for interviewing people who are actually content with their way of life. These people have also, more often than not, never been to an Islamic country.

2) Even if they have ever been to an Islamic country, they have never bothered to try to get to know the natives and actually speak with them and get their true opinions but preferred to stick close to their own closed circle of fellow countrymen never venturing far away from them.

3) They do not differentiate between the words and actions of a government in an Islamic country and the teachings of Islam itself. Is it logical to say: "The United States does not permit religious education in it's public schools. The United States is a Christian country. Therefore, Christianity does not allow the teaching of religion in public schools"?.

As the saying goes: "you can't please all of the people all of the time". During the days of the Communist Soviet Union, there was no shortage of articles in that country condemning the decadent West, the moral decay of their society, and their complete lack of love for their fellow countrymen. You might even be able to find a couple of articles about the imminent fall of such a materialistic

Western society and maybe even interviews with some of the socialist Communist reform groups within the United States itself and their opinions about the abysmal conditions in the USA. The reader could then conclude that all of the citizens of the United States hate democracy and long for the day when communism will free them from the shackles of democracy.

Many non-Muslims feel sorry for any Muslim women they see adorned in their modest clothing. They are deprived the freedom to roam around in more scant and revealing clothing. Anyone who lives in a manner other that which they have become accustomed to is seen by them to be oppressed and forced to live in this manner. There are certain tribes in the Amazon jungle and in Africa which

have become accustomed to walking around in a simple g-string around their waist. What would the people of the West say if these people were to condemn the Western habit of wearing "excessive amounts of clothing" and to demand that all women in the west immediately stop wearing anything but the simplest g-string around their waist?.

What if they were to say that the Western society should immediately stop unjustly persecuting their women and preventing them from freely roaming the streets wearing only a pair of socks?. They would say that the people making these demands have no morals or shame. Philosophers would have a field day with such a question.

What if someone were to claim that it was immoral, discriminatory, and unjust to separate men and women in different public bathrooms just as it is not just to do so with blacks and whites. What if this person were to then call (in the interest of equality, fairness, and constitutional freedom of course) for a merging of men and women's bathrooms into one "unisex" or "equal-opportunity" bathrooms for both men and women?. Once again, the philosophers would have a field day. Anyone who follows

the news will see that this is indeed where the USA is now headed. In the New York Post (31 Aug. 1994 or a little before) it is reported that women have now won the right to appear topless in the New York subway system. Where will the USA be a few years from now?. That is anyone's guess.

Who has the power to determine what is decent and modest clothing?. Who is to determine what is decent and modest behavior?. Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") assign this right to God alone. This is the essence of "Islam". "Islam" means "The submission to the will of God". What God commands, a Muslim does. They do not demand that God justify his commands before they accept them. Once they have verified that a command is indeed from God then they abide by it without hesitation.

Well then, what is the Biblical view on these matters?. For all those Christians who would like to see what the Bible has to say about women, we will quote a small sample:

What St. Paul's "new covenant" has to say:

1 Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression".

1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church".

1 Corinthians 11:5-10: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be

covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

1 Corinthians 11:13: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God (with her head) uncovered?"

What the Old Testament has to say:

Genesis 3:12-16 "And the man (Adam) said, The woman (Eve) whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And the LORD God said

unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he

shall rule over thee".

Leviticus 12:2-5 "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days".

In other words, the Bible teaches us that:

1) Women should learn in silence and subjugation.

2) Women should not teach.

3) Women should not have authority over men but should remain silent.

4) Adam and Eve were not equal in sin. Adam was not deceived but Eve was.

5) Women must keep silent in Churches and not open their mouths.

6) Women are commanded to be under obedience to men.

7) Women should not ask a question in Church. If they have a question they should ask their husbands before going to church and then their husbands will ask for them in the church.

8) It is a shame for women to speak in the church.

9) God ordained that men shall for all time rule over women.

10) A woman should neither pray nor profess with her head uncovered.

11) If a woman prays with her head uncovered then she might as well shave her head.

12) Man was created in the image and glory of God, and Woman was created in the glory of Man, thus Man must have power over her head.

13) Any woman who delivers a male baby shall be unclean for one week. But any woman who delivers a female baby shall be unclean for TWO weeks. Thus, females make their mothers DOUBLY unclean as compared to males.

What the canonized saints of Christianity said about women:

"Woman is a daughter of falsehood, a sentinel of Hell, the enemy of peace; through her Adam lost paradise" (St. John Demascene)

"Woman is the instrument which the devil uses to gain possession of our souls" (St. Cyprian)

"Woman is the fountain of the arm of the devil, her voice is the hissing of the serpent" (St. Anthony)

"Woman has the poison of an asp, the malice of a dragon"

(St. Gregory the great)

It is generally accepted that St. Paul, the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament, underwent a "miraculous" conversion from a persecutor and killer of Christians into a more perfect teacher of Christianity than the apostles themselves (see future posts). It is also well known that just prior to Paul's "miraculous" conversion and "heavenly vision" he had been extremely infatuated with a woman called Popea and had wished to marry her. Popea was the attractive but ambitious daughter of the high priest of the Jews. She possessed haughty beauty, and an intriguing mind. She liked Paul but rejected his offers of marriage. She went to Rome as an actress. She started on the stage and ended up in Emperor Nero's bed. She eventually married him and became the Empress of the Roman Empire. For any normal man this would have been sufficient reason to hate both the Jews, the Romans, and probably even all women in general. After his conversion, Paul began to preach celibacy (See most of 1 Corinthians 7). If Paul would have had his way, mankind would have become extinct.

So what is the official standpoint of the Qur'an with regard to women?. Let us have a look:

"And they (women) have rights similar to those of men over them in a just manner"

Qur'an Al-Baqarah(2):228

"And their Lord has heard them (and He says):

Verily! I suffer not the work of any worker, male or female, to be lost.

You proceed one from another. So those who fled and were driven forth from their homes and suffered damage for My cause, and fought and were slain, verily I shall remit their evil deeds from them and verily I shall bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow. A reward from Allah. And with Allah is the fairest of rewards". Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):195.

"And covet not the thing in which Allah has made some of you excel others.

Unto men a fortune from that which they have earned, and unto women a fortune from that which they have earned. (Envy not one another) but ask Allah of His bounty.

Verily! Allah is Knower of all things".

Qur'an Al-Nissa(4):32.

"Unto the men (of a family) belongs a share of that which parents and near kindred leave, and unto the women a share of that which parents and near kindred leave, whether it be little or much, a legal share".

Qur'an Al-Nissa(4):77.

"And whoso does good works, whether of male or female, and he (or she) is a believer, such will enter paradise and they will not be wronged the dint in a date stone".


"And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends one of another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and they establish worship and they pay the poor-due, and they obey Allah and His messenger. As for these, Allah will have mercy on them. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise".

Qur'an Al-Tauba(9):71

"Whosoever does right, whether male or female, and is a believer, him verily We shall quicken with good life, and We shall pay them a recompense in proportion to the best of what they used to do".

Qur'an, Al-Nahil(16):97.

"And of His signs is this: He created for you spouses from yourselves that you might find tranquillity in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy.

Lo, herein indeed are signs for folk who reflect".

Qur'an Al-Room(30):21

"Whoso does an ill deed, he will be repaid the like thereof, while whoso does right, whether male or female, and is a believer, (all) such will enter the Garden, where they will be nourished without stint". Qur'an 40.

In the Qur'an, both Adam and Eve share the blame for eating from the tree. This can be seen in the Qur'an in such verses as Al-Baqarah(2):36, Al-A'araf(7):22-24. They were also both forgiven by God almighty for this sin. Actually, in one verse of the Qur'an (Taha(20):121), Adam is specifically blamed.

Islam encourages spouses to take each other's council and to seek mutual agreement in matters which affect them, for example, in the Qur'an, Al-Bakarah(2):233 we read:

"Mothers shall suckle their children for two whole years;

(that is) for those who wish to complete the suckling.

The duty of feeding and clothing nursing mothers in a seemly manner is upon the father of the child. No one should be charged beyond their capacity.

A mother should not be made to suffer because of her child, nor should he to whom the child is born (be made to suffer) because of his child. And on the (father's) heir is incumbent the like of that (which

was incumbent on the father). If they desire to wean the child by mutual consent and (after) consultation, it is no sin for them; and if you wish to give your children out to nurse, it is no sin for you, provided that you pay what is due from you in kindness.

Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is Seer of what you do".

Husbands are commanded to treat their wives with kindness and respect. In Al-Nissa(4)-19 we read "..But consort with them in kindness, for if you hate them it may happen that

you hate a thing wherein Allah has placed much good".

The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) said: "The most perfect believers are the best in conduct, and the best of you are those who are best to their wives".

These are only the tip of the iceberg, as any truly comprehensive study of this matter would require quite a few hundred pages just to contain the verses of the Qur'an and the sayings of the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in this regard.


This will, by Allah's will, be the ninth in a series of articles which will prove all of the claims of the Qur'an regarding the Bible. Thelast eight articles have already:

1) presented four very detailed predictions of the coming of Mohammed (pbuh) in the Bible

2) Shown very clear proof that the "torah" of the Jews was not written by Moses (pbuh).

3) Presented a short list of 73 contradictions between the verses of the Bible

4) Shown how all of the claims of the Qur'an are verified in the"Gospel of Barnabas" and that this Gospel has been hidden in the Christian Vatican for centuries now.

5) Shown how the scholars of Christianity do not know who wrote the books of the bible, and how these books were at one time considered "apocryphic" and doubtful while at the same time, books which are today considered apocryphic were then considered authentic.

In addition to other matters.

In this article we will by Allah's will begin to reveal how the Bible was modified, who did it, and why. This is much to large and complex a topic to be dealt with in one article, so it will be necessary to

divide this discussion into multiple articles which will exhibit the historical sequence of events which lead up to the distortion of the Bible. All of my claims will be substantiated through the words of

Christian scholars and references, or through the Bible itself. (by Allah's will).

Mr. Ernest Ong ( ) said:

You are quite right there. Many things that are attributed to Jesus, the current scholars agree weren't actually spoken by Jesus. In fact, trying to figure out which ones Jesus actually did say, is pretty tricky, as you could imagine.

Isn't it amazing that the Qur'an told us this over 1400 years ago?. Isn't it amazing that the Qur'an said this back at a time when people were casually put to death and burned at the stake for daring to think such thoughts. Today we are able to agree that much of what is claimed to have been said by Jesus (pbuh) was falsely attributed to him by others. So now, not only has the first claim of the Qur'an been proven true but acceptance of this fact has become so universal among Christian scholars that it is not even the subject of debate anymore (a minority of the most adamant conservatives will always be the exception). So now that it is well know and accepted among them that the Bible is the end result of countless people putting words in the mouth of Jesus (pbuh) for many centuries, and you yourself readily recognize this, now it becomes necissary to try and distill the true words of Jesus (pbuh)

from all of the "trimming" and "embroidery" and "clarification", and "divine inspiration of Jesus to the Church". Many scholars have all but given up on ever finding the true teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and distinguishing it from all of the "insertions".

Mr. C.J. Cadoux has the following to say in his book "The life of Jesus"

"In the four Gospels, therefore, the main documents to which we must go if we are to fill-out at all that bare sketch which we can put together from other sources, we find material of widely differing

quality as regards credibility. So far-reaching is the element of uncertainty that it is tempting to 'down tools' at once, and to declare the task hopeless. The historical inconsistencies and improbabilities in parts of the Gospels form some of the arguments advanced in favor of the Christ-myth theory. These are, however, entirely outweighed- as we have shown- by other considerations. Still the discrepancies and uncertainties that remain are serious- and consequently many moderns who have no doubt whatever of Jesus' real existence, regard as hopeless any attempt to dissolve out of the historically-true from the legendary or mythical matter which the Gospels contain, and to reconstruct the story of Jesus' mission out of the more historical residue" .

Mr.C.G.Tucker Says in his book "The history of the Christians in the light of modern knowledge" ".....Thus Gospels were produced which clearly reflected the conception of the practical needs of the community for which they were written. In them the traditional material was used, but there was no hesitation in altering it or making additions to it, or in leaving out what did not serve the writer's purpose".

All of this even though in Deuteronomy 4:2 we read "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God".

"The five Gospels", is a 550 page translation of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It was the result of a six year study by 24 Christian scholars from some of the most prestigious universities the United States and Canada have to offer. They decided to produce a translation of the Gospels which would be uncolored by the translator's personal faith. It was decided that this translation was to give the reader an honest picture of what Jesus (pbuh) truly said. They scanned

the text for the words of Jesus (pbuh), and collect an index of over 1,500 such sayings. They then tested the validity of each of these sayings, one at a time, to see whether Jesus (pbuh) truly said each one. They then produced a fresh translation, color-coded to show authentic Jesuite sayings and those of an unreliable nature. Their conclusion (page 5) was:

"EIGHTY-TWO PERCENT of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him". They go on to say: "..biblical scholars and theologians alike have learned to distinguish the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith. It has been a painful lesson for both the church and scholarship. The distinction between the two figures is the difference between a historical person who lived in a particular time and place.......and a figure who has been assigned a mythical role, in which

he descends from heaven to rescue humankind and, of course, eventually returns there".

Well then, if 82% of the "words of Jesus" found in the Bible were never spoken by him then where did they come from?. Some of the sources demonstrated by the authors are:

"The concept of plagiarism was unknown in the ancient world. Authors freely copied from predecessors without acknowledgment. Sages became the repository of free-floating proverbs and witticisms. For the first Christians, Jesus was a legendary sage: it was proper to attribute the

world's wisdom to him. The proverb in Mark 2:17, for example, is attested in secular sources (Plutarch and Diogenes for example) the parallel to the Markan passage, Matthew adds a sentence taken from the prophet Hosea (Matt 9:13)".

Also: "Hard sayings are frequently softened in the process of transmission to adapt them to the conditions of daily living.....Variations in difficult saying often betray the struggle of the early Christian community to interpret or adapt sayings to it's own situations.... Matthew's version of the aphorism "The last will be first and the first last"(Matt 20:16) is softened in Mark 10:31 to "MANY

of the first will be last, and of the last MANY will be first"".

And probably most revealing: "Christian conviction eventually overwhelms Jesus: he is made to confess what Christians had come to believe....The contrast between Christian language or viewpoint and the language or viewpoint of Jesus is a very important clue to the real voice of Jesus, the language of Jesus was distinctive, as was his style and perspective".

If Nostradamus had predicted in the sixteenth century that "three hundred years from now it will be found that mankind has been continuously tampering with the Bible", then three centuries later, when this prediction would come true, people would be scrambling to find every single scrap of information they could about what else he knew about this matter.

The claims of Qur'an on the other hand are slowly being verified by Christian scholars, but it can't possibly be that the Qur'an could be right in anything else, there must be another explanation. they

continue to look for the true word of Jesus (pbuh) from among all of the false ones, and will never attempt to verify any of the other claims of the Qur'an regarding Jesus (pbuh) true message or his true words and gospel to his followers.

All that we know, is what His followers then taught. From their teachings, we can conclude that they are quite consistent, with respect to each other. St Paul's letters are a good place to start, since St Paul met with the 12 and would surely know their ideas.

It is interesting you should put it exactly this way. I intend to prove what Christian scholars have already written quite extensively about. That "Saint Paul" is the one chiefly responsible for the

changes to the Bible and that he openly lied and even admitted to lying against God, and his teachings were in direct opposition to those of the apostles of Jesus (pbuh). Remember, "St. Paul", a Jew who was formerly known as "Saul of Tarsus", was well known for the persecution of the followers of Jesus (pbuh) and even presided over the death of some of them.

"For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it"

Galatians 1:13.

Also see Galatians 1:13-15, Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-2, Acts 9:41, Acts 6:5.. etc.

"Saint Paul" never met Jesus (pbuh) personally, but he would later announce that he was receiving

"visions" from Jesus (pbuh) that made him a more perfect teacher of the "true" religion of

Jesus (pbuh) than the apostles who accompanied him during his mission. He is the author of the majority of the books of the new testament available today. In these books, he speaks of the apostles as lazy, misguided, hypocrites (see below).

"St. Paul" decided that he wanted to preach to the Greeks. However,the religion of Jesus (pbuh) was never meant for them, it was only meant to be taught to the Jews. The Greeks hated the Jews with

such a passion that for them to hear that a Jew loved something was sufficient motive for them to hate it.

Toland says in his book The Nazarenes:

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

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

The Qur'an tells us that Jesus (pbuh) was sent to the Jews alone in order to return them to the true religion of Moses (pbuh) which had been corrupted by mankind:

(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Allah gives you glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary,

illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).

He will speak unto mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous.

She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal has touched me?

He said: So (it will be). Allah createth what He will. if He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel.

And will make him a messenger unto the children of Israel, (saying): Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by Allah's leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah's leave. And I announce unto you what you eat and what you store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you, if you are believers.

And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you.

I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

Lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path.

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

Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah?

The disciples said: We will be Allah's helpers. We believe in Allah, and bear you witness that we have surrendered (unto Him). Our Lord! We believe in that which You have revealed and we follow him whom You have sent. Enroll us among those who witness (to the truth).

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

and Allah is the best of schemers"


This is confirmed in the Bible in 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 fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the sameshall be called great in the kingdom of heaven".

Heaven and earth have not yet passed. The fact that you are readingthis bears witness to this very simple fact. Thus, Jesus (pbuh) is telling us in no uncertain terms that the he did not come to nullify

the religion of Moses (pbuh) but to fulfill and confirm it. Jesus(pbuh) had forseen the attempt of mankind to "soften" his religionand make it more "simple". He was warning his followers to have

nothing whatsoever to do with such people, not to believe them, and that they would be subject to the wrath of God on the day of judgement.

Christian scholars confirm that the very first "Christians" were Unitarian believers in one God (exactly like Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") today) The very first Christians were all devout Jews. These first followers of Jesus (including the apostles themselves) followed the same religion which Moses (pbuh) and his followers had followed for centuries before them. They knew of no "new covenant" or annulments of the commandments of Moses (pbuh). They had been taught by Jesus (pbuh) that his religion was an affirmation of the religion of the Jews and a continuation of it.

"The first FIFTEEN Bishops of Jerusalem", writes Gibbon, "were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation over which they presided united the Law of Moses with the Doctrine of Christ".

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

A University of Richmond professor, Dr. Robert Alley, after considerable research into newly found ancient documents concludes that

"....The (Biblical) passages where Jesus talks about the Son of God are later additions.... what the church said about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have been consistent with his

entire lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the first three decades after Jesus' death Christianity continued as a sect within Judaism. The first THREE DECADES of the existence of the church were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they (the followers) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus".

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

Toland observes: "We know already to what degree imposture and credulity went hand in hand in the primitive times of the Christian Church, the last being as ready to receive as the first was to forge

books, This evil grew afterwards not only greater when the Monks were the sole transcribers and the sole keepers of all books good or bad, but in process of time it became almost absolutely impossible to distinguish history from fable, or truth from error as to the beginning and original monuments of Christianity. How immediate successors of the Apostles could so grossly confound the genuine

teaching of their masters with such as were falsely attributed to them?. Or since they were in the dark about these matters so early how came such as followed them by a better light? And observing 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. Tertullianand the rest of such writers should not be accounted equally authentic? And what stress should he laid on the testimony of those Fathers who not only contradict one another but are also often inconsistent with themselves in their relations of the very samefacts?". The Nazarenes, John Toland, pp. 73.

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

"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time comes, that whosoever kills you will think

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

You say "St Paul's letters are a good place to start, since St Paul met with the 12 and would surely know their ideas"

What would you say if I were to tell you that "St. Paul" himself swears in the name of God that this never happened?. What would you say if I could demonstrate to you that Saul of Tarsus can not

even keep the narration of his own "conversion" and "salvation" straight?. Would that prove that he was making up his own version of the religion of Jesus (pbuh) as he went along?. If he can not

keep the narration of his own salvation straight then how can we trust him in more critical matters?. The proof of his own admission of fabrication is as follows:

If we read Acts 9:19-29 and Acts 26:19-21, we will find that Paul is supposed to have "seen the Lord in the way" and accepted Christianity after being a staunch enemy of Christians and having become famous for his severe persecution of them. Barnabas (one of the apostles of Jesus) then supposedly vouched for him with the other apostles and convinced them to accept him. Paul then went with all of the apostles on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem and all of Judaea

preaching boldly to it's people. Paul then appointed himself the twelfth apostle of Jesus (in place of Judas who had the devil in him)as seen in his own books Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1 ..etc..

The verses mentioned are:

Acts 9:19-29: "And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the

synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was unknown of Saul. And they watched gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way,and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him".

Acts 26:19-21 "Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me".

Contradicted by:

Galatians 1:15-23 "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed".

With regard to the first two passages, Reverend Dr. Davies in "The first Christian", p. 26-32 says: "These assertions are not inconsistent with each other, but are damaging for another reason,:they are contradicted by Paul himself in his letter to the Galatians(Chapters 1 and 2)".

Rev. Davies draws attention to Paul's oath:

"Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God I do not lie",

which makes his account a sworn affidavit. He goes on to say: "To the story in Acts, this contradiction is disastrous.There never was a teaching campaign at Jerusalem and through all of the county of Judea (Acts 26:20). If Paul was unknown to the Judean communities as he says, then he had undertaken no mission among them. In fact he had never joined the Judean movement or even attempted to join it. He only saw Cephas, and Jesus' brother James. Even of the

other apostles, not to mention more ordinary believers, 'I saw none' he admits. Instead of his having gone 'in and out of Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord' the Jerusalem community

had not even known that he was there. 'They only heard' he tells us 'that he who once persecuted us now makes the faith of which he made havoc'; but they never heard him preach it in Judea".

Rev. Davies concludes that "..if there is any portion of the New Testament that is authentic, it is Paul's letter to the Galatians. If we cannot rely upon this letter, we can rely upon nothing and may as well close our inquiry. But the fact is that we can rely upon it. The letter to the Galatians is from Paul himselfand by every test is genuine".

According to the narration in Acts, Paul saw his alleged vision. "Straightway" he began preaching in the synagogues of Damascus. He built up a reputation through his bold preaching that amazed the

masses. He confounded the Jews of Damascus. Many days later, the Jews tried to kill him so he escaped to Jerusalem. He met Barnabas who introduced him to the apostles for the first time. They were all terrified of Paul, but Barnabas convinced them to accept him. Now Paul and all of the apostles went on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem speaking boldly in the name of Jesus.

However, according to the narration in Galatians, Paul saw his alleged vision. "Immediately" he did NOT confer with "flesh and blood" NOR did he go to Jerusalem to see the apostles, but rather he

traveled to Arabia then back to Damascus. He mentions no preaching in any of these places. After at least three years he goes to Jerusalem for the FIRST time and meets only Peter and James and no

ther apostles. He stays with them for fifteen days but, once again, he mentions no preaching campaign either with all of the apostles, with some of them, or alone. He also has never been here in the past nor performed a preaching campaign here in the past since he is unknown by face to them and they have "heard only" of his claimed conversion.

Some of the contradictions are:

1) Galatians claims that after his alleged vision, Paul "Immediately" spoke to "no flesh and blood" but rather traveled to Arabia and then to Damascus. So he did not "straightway", if at all, preach boldly in Damascus as claimed by Acts (How long would it take to travel from Damascus to Arabia to Damascus? Could he go and come back "straightway"?).

2) According to Galatians, Paul did not go to Jerusalem where the apostles were. Rather, he went to Arabia then to Damascus. Now, after at least THREE YEARS (not many days), he goes to Jerusalem.

He *EXPLICITLY* admits that "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles". So this is claimed to be his FIRST visit to Jerusalem after his claimed vision. This FIRST visit is claimed to have occurred at least THREE YEARS after Paul's alleged vision. However, Acts claims that MANY DAYS after his vision he traveled to Jerusalem and performed a bold preaching campaign with all the apostles. Acts also mentions no intermediate journey to Arabia.

3) According to Galatians, upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem he met Peter and James and no other apostles. He can not have met any apostles in Jerusalem before this because he claims that immediately after his vision "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles" but rather, it claims that he FIRST went to Jerusalem at least "THREE YEARS" after his claimed vision. On the other hand, Acts claims that the first time he met the apostles was many days after his claimed vision at which time he met ALL of the apostles. This too is obviously his first meeting

with them since they all feared him. Notice the words "they were ALL afraid of him". This would not be the case if Peter and James had already met him since even if they had never mentioned him to

the other apostles, still, at the very least they themselves (Peter and James) would not fear him. Also notice that it was only Barnabas who stood up for him and not Barnabas, Peter, and James.

4) Galatians claims that after Paul's first visit to Jerusalem all the apostles feared him but then Barnabas convinced them to accept him and they ALL went hand in hand "in and out of Jerusalem"

preaching "boldly" to the Jews. However, Acts claims that his first visit to Jerusalem was after THREE YEARS and upon this FIRST visit he met ONLY Peter and James. He is not claimed to have gone with Peter and James on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem, nor could he have done so in the past with ALL of the apostles since if he had done so he would not have been "unknown by face to the churches of Judea", they would also not have "heard only" of his conversion but would have witnessed his bold campaign with all of the apostles with their own eyes.

If the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament can not even keep the narration of own "salvation" straight then how are we expected to believe him in such critical matters as the "true" meanings of Jesus' words, or other matters?. How are we to believehis claims that Jesus (pbuh) came to him in visions and commanded him to utterly destroy everything he had steadfastly observed his whole life?

Strange as it may seem, there is a logical explanation for the above contradictions. This explanation is given by Paul himself. He says:

"For if the truth of God has more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?". Romans 3:7.

So Paul is telling his followers that it is necessary for a good Christian to "lie unto God's glory" in order for God's truth to "abound". Truth and morality will never be sufficient to completely establish God's "truth". He is protesting to us that we should not label him a "sinner" merely because he lied unto God's glory, if he had not lied unto God's glory then God's truth would never have been established so fully. Sound logical?.

The careful reader will notice many other holes in the story of Paul's alleged "conversion". For instance, in Acts 22:9 Paul claims that when he spoke to Jesus (pbuh), those traveling with him "saw the light", but "they heard not the voice". While in Acts 9:7 those who were with Paul are claimed to have "stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man". Don't take my word for it, by all means "prove all things". The teachings of Christianity as they are known today are built upon the claims of Paul, the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament. He is trusted blindly because he claims to have seen Jesus (pbuh) in a heavenly vision, to have been vouched for by

the apostle Barnabas, to have met and been accepted by all of the apostles, to have preached with all the apostles boldly in the name of Jesus throughout the land of Judaea, and as a result of this to have

endured severe hardship and persecution. However, anyone who would simply read their Bible will find that Paul himself swears in the name of God almighty that this is a fabrication because Judaea had never even seen his face and had "heard only" of his alleged conversion. Further, he never met any of the apostles save Peter and James. Even with all of this Christians insist on interpreting

the words of Jesus within the context of Paul's teachings.

Around the 25th of Sep. 1994 (I forget the exact date), a US newspapers ran an article about a man in California alleged to be the "Thrill" killer. He was accused of killing six people. During his trial he did something totally unexpected. He suddenly jumped up and said three words: "I am guilty". He had not consulted his lawyer and no one had expected this turn of events. Was he thrown in jail?. No.

Was he sentenced to the "chair". No!. Well what did happen?. This admitted killer of six people was proclaimed to be mentally incompetent and his testimony could in no way benefit the prosecution.

Does this sound like justice?. Does this sound like logic?. Paul himself admits that he had LIED. He does not admit to just any lie but a lie AGAINST GOD'S GLORY. Is he condemned as a heretic?. No. Is he called a blasphemer?. No. Is he burned at the stake?. No!. He is called a "saint". Can any other Christian openly admit to having lied against God's Glory and get away with it?. If a Christian were to jump up in church and shout at the top of his lungs "I have lied against God's Glory!", would the congregation proudly parade him up and down the streets and call him a "saint"?. Would they then burn their Bibles and ask for divine inspiration from him?. Would they "interpret" his "lie" sixty different ways to make it a "good" and "pious" lie?. Would they only interpret the words of Jesus (pbuh) through his words?. Can you picture anyone in their right mind doing such a thing?. Is this how we love God "with all our minds"( Mark 12:30)?.

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

Werde describes him as "The second founder of Christianity". He further says that due to Paul:

"...the discontinuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ of the Church became so great that any unity between them is scarcely recognizable" .

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

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

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

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

"After Jesus was crucified, his followers, strengthened by the conviction that he had risen from the dead and that they were filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, formed the first Christian community in Jerusalem. By the middle of the 1st century, missionaries were spreading the new religion among the peoples of Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Greece, and Italy. Chief among these was Saint Paul, who laid

the foundations of Christian theology and played a key role in the transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect to a world religion. The original Christians, being Jews, observed the dietary and

ritualistic laws of the Torah and required non-Jewish converts to do the same. Paul and others favored *ELIMINATING OBLIGATION*, thus making Christianity more attractive to Gentiles". (emphasis added).

As we can see, this information is not new. It has been well recognised and documented for centuries now. Even centuries ago, it was well known that most of what was claimed by the church could not be verified through the Bible. Thus, a shift was made from obtaining one's inspiration from the Bible to abtaining it from the "Bride of Jesus", the church. Fra Fulgentio, for instance, was once repremanded by the Pope in a letter saying "Preaching of the Scriptures is a suspicious thing. He who keeps close to the Scriptures will ruin the Catholic faith". In his next letter he was more explicit: "...which is a book if anyone keeps close to will quite destroy the Catholic faith".

Tetradymus, John Toland.

There are so many more similar examples of how Paul openly and blatantly made major changes to the religion of Jesus that flagrantly contradicted both the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. However, a study of those examples will be left to a future article by Allah's will.

Also, keep in mind the following admission of "St. Paul":He looks down upon the apostles who accompanied Jesus (pbuh) duringhis mission as misguided, lazy, hypocrites:

After the departure of Jesus, circumcision became an issue of personal conflict between the apostle Peter who insisted upon it (It would take too much space to get into this here, by Allah's will this

issue will be dealt with in detail in a future article) and Paul who wanted to do away with it (preach to non-Jews also). Galatians 2:7:

"I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised".

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

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

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

So now it becomes apparent from Paul's words that, in addition to all the above, the apostles

were also MISGUIDED. It would have been interesting to have heard for instance Barnabas' version of these matters had he been chosen as the "majority author" of the Bible rather than Paul. According to many similar passages, it seems that the apostles were constantly in need of Paul's guidance to recognize the truth. To get Barnabas's version of these matters, his opinion of Paul, as well as what really happened at the cross look for "The Gospel of Barnabas",

Paul also believed that "...I labored more abundantly than they (The apostles) all"

1 Corinthians 15:10. So, the apostles of Jesus were such lazy layabouts that Paul was doing more work than all eleven of them. All of this even though the apostles spent countless years with

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

The great apostle of Jesus (pbuh), Barnabas (the defender and benefactor of Paul), in the opening statements of his Gospel has the following to say about Paul among others:

"True Gospel of Jesus, called Messiah, a new prophet sent by God to the world according to the description of Barnabas his apostle. Barnabas, apostle of Jesus the Nazarene, called Messiah, to all them that dwell upon the earth desire peace and consolation. Truly beloved, the great and wonderful God has in these past days visited us by His apostle Jesus (the) Messiah in great mercy of teaching and miracles, by reason whereof many, being deceived by Satan, under pretense of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus the Son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained by God forever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul has been deceived, whereof I speak not without grief: for which cause I am writing the truth which I have seen and heard, in the fellowship that I have had with Jesus, in order that you may be saved, and not be deceived by Satan and perish in judgment of God. Therefore, beware of everyone that preaches to you a new doctrine contrary to that which I write, that you may be saved eternally. The great God be with you and guard you from Satan and from every evil. Amen".

Paul himself admits that there were those who were preaching a different Gospel than his own and were gaining converts. He does not name his adversaries, but we can read about his most noble adversaries in two places wherein Paul uses what Prof. Brandon calls "very remarkable terms" to describe them. The first is Galatians 1:6-9.

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed".

The second is 2 Corinthians 11:3-6 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things".

These opponents of Paul were clearly preaching "another Gospel" and "another Jesus", they were also obviously operating among Paul's own target group and converting his converts. All of this even though their teachings did not exhibit the "simplicity" that Paul preached but required their followers to work for their salvation. However, Paul displays amazing restraint when referring to them by not

lambasting them with the vehemence of speech which he is so capable nor questioning their authority. Rather, he gives a clue to their identity with the words: "...For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles" and "we, or an angel from heaven", and "unto another gospel: Which is not another".

Paul further that he did not learn his version of Christianity fromthe apostles but was receiving these new and innovative teachings in "visions" from Jesus (pbuh) which were denied the apostles who had

accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his ministry:

Galatians 1:12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ".

Did Jesus (pbuh) come to Paul in a "vision" and command him to lie against God?. Is God's light so week that it can only be advanced through Paul's lies?. Are Paul's lies so "pious" as to advance God's glory in a manner that would be impossible through truth and light alone?. Is this what Jesus (pbuh) was teaching him in his "visions"?. Is this the religion of God?.

It is interesting to note that Paul himself was not even sure about his own "visions". In 2 Corinthians 12:1-5 we read: "It is expedient for me to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to

visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; such an one caught up to the thinot tell: God knoweth; How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.".

So Paul did not know if the man in his "visions" was "in the body" or"out of the body". Paul's vision also contained "unspeakable words"which were "not lawful for a man to utter".

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

The Qur'an says:

"And if it be said unto them:

Follow that which Allah has revealed, they say: Nay, but we follow that wherein we found our fathers. What! Even though the devil was inviting them to the torture of the fire?"

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

There is so much more that could be said about this matter, but I have to keep the length of each article under some semblance of control. By Allah's will, much more will be revealed in future


You say:

All I was saying is that, if one needs to interpret so much with respect to the past (the Bible, that is), could one say the Bible is not timeless. And my claim is, the teachings in it are pretty timeless. I

didn't claim that only it had the truth. BTW, in your opinion, do you believe that only one religion can be true? I personally believe that all religions have aspects of the truth

Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") are taught that Allah(God) sent messenger to every single nation upon the face of the earth throughout time. This was to ensure that never would there be a time when the religion of God would be totally wiped out by the hands of mankind and be unavailable to those who searched for it.

"Verily! We have sent you (O Mohammad) with the Truth, a bearer of glad tidings and a warner; and there is not a nation but a warner has passed among them", The Qur'an,Fatir(35):24.

Obviously, even if mankind managed to pervert the basic doctrine of God's message, it would still contain some remnants of the original message. Total annihilation would require the complete removal of the religion itself. Thus, we are told that each religion on earth today had it's origins in a true prophet sent by God but was later corrupted by mankind.

If you worked at a factory, and you were the foreman of some group of people, and if your boss were to send you a memo telling you:

"Be good to the employees, make them work hard but let them play hard too. A content worker is a productive worker. Give them incentives every now and then. Talk kindly to them but if they get out of line cut their pay. Tell them that so long as I am around, I will always look out for them so long as they work hard for me and are industrious".

Let us say that one of the employees intercepted this memo before it got to you and made some "corrections" as follows:

"Be good to the employees, let them play hard. A content worker is a well-loved worker. Give them incentives every now and then. Talk kindly to them but if they get out of line forgive them. I will be coming over to tell them all of this personally as well as to inform them that they no longer need to do any shred of work. So long as they always smile at each other I will continue to pay their salaries. The days of working for your wages are over. The government only required your predecessors to work for their wages because the British attempted to take our freedom away. However, the government has informed me that it will now pay you directly and will not require any work in return because it loves you. The reason that they can now do this is because they finally have a plant that

has broken all records of productivity. They will shut it down and this will balance out the deeds of the British".

Would you say, "This message has obviously been modified by someone, but the modifications were most likely in side issues. The fundamental concept of the original has most likely been preserved.

This is obvious because it is so full of love and goodness. There is too much goodness in this memo for it to have been written by anyone but our loving boss"?.

There is much more to be said about these matters, however, I will have to postpone that to future posts. Once again, stay tuned.


Starting with this article, inshallah, the very founding beliefs of Christianity today will be proven to be innovations of mankind and not the teachings of Jesus (pbuh). The concepts which shall shortly be

exposed as fabrications of mankind will include:

1) The "Trinity"

2) The "Son of God"

3) The "initial sin"

4) The "atonement"

Throughout all of this, the true historical details of when, how, and by whom these concepts were slowly inserted into the religion of Jesus (pbuh) shall be presented. Once again this shall be done by quoting Christian scholars and the Bible only.

Goal of these articles

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. Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") are told in the Qur'an that Mohammed (pbuh) was prophesied as the last messenger of God for all time by all of God's previous prophets. It was demonstrated how mankind had attempted to warp the words of these prophesies in order to attempt to erase all references to Mohammed (pbuh) from the scriptures. Detailed examples of such attempts were

presented and the contradictions resulting from these attempts to hide the truth were presented. Throughout all of this, only the words of the Bible, the words of Christian scholars, and logic were used.

In the previous articles, many prophesies of Mohammed (pbuh) were presented, many examples of the tampering fingers of mankind were displayed, detailed proof of the corruption of the Torah of the Jews was shown, and many other topics were discussed. Now it is time to get down to the basic faith of "Christianity" which is claimed to be the teachings of Allah's prophet Jesus (pbuh). Those who follow the church are told to believe that Jesus (pbuh) was the physical son of God. That he was part of a "Trinity". That the "Trinity" is ONE god and not many, or in layman's terms: "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are the same being and not three separate beings". That Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross to relieve mankind of the sin of Adam which they had forcibly inherited and were destined to be thrown in hell for. That Jesus (pbuh) had taught that once a man has "faith" and believes in these concepts then he is destined to go straight to heaven without the need for any real work on his part other than this belief in the actions of Adam and Jesus (peace be upon them).

The goal of these articles is simple: To exhibit irrefutable tangible proof that mankind is guilty of tampering with the religion of Jesus (pbuh) after his departure. Fourteen hundred years ago, the holy book of the Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more"), the Qur'an, was sent down upon the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) by God informing him that mankind had dared to change the religion of God which He sent down upon Jesus, Moses, and the previous prophets (peace be upon them all). It has taken close to two thousand years for Christianity to recognize this as a known fact. Today, you would be hard pressed to find a single scholar of Christianity who does not readily acknowledge this as a true scientific fact (A minority of the most adamant conservatives will always be the exception). The evidence is simply too overwhelming to ignore.

When I speak of "scholars of Christianity" I mean those people who have dedicate their lives to the pursuit of detailed historical facts regarding the history of the Bible through the unbiased logical study of the countless ancient documents of the Christian empire, the Bible itself, and other methods. These people are found in abundance in the of Christianity" by this definition does not include the "televanglists", the "evangelists", and so forth who have much to lose by recognizing such facts. It has required the bravery and sacrifice of countless such unwavering seekers of truth to bring us this information. In the past, such people were casually put to death without a second thought. Even today, many of them are being fired from their jobs and black-listed for openly speaking about such matters. If they are liars then their lies should be exposed. If there is some truth to what they say,

then such selfless dedication and vigilance against those who would distort the word of God should not be allowed to go unrecognized. For this reason we will study the details of their findings in these articles.

The claims of the Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") as taught in the holy Qur'an are:

1) That Muhammad (pbuh) was the last in a long and distinguished line of prophets sent by God.

2) That in the past, whenever a prophet of God would pass away, his people would begin to corrupt the religion of God until it would become so corrupt that it would be necessary for God to send a new

prophet to return them to His true religion which was sent down upon their previous prophets.

3) That a pocket of unscrupulous people had managed to change the religion of Moses (pbuh) after his death, thus God sent Jesus (pbuh), in order to return them to the religion of Moses (pbuh). Similarly, a pocket of mankind managed to change the religion of Jesus (pbuh) after his departure and so it was necessary for God to send Muhammad (pbuh).

4) That God is one god. The "trinity" is a fabrication of mankind. God has no sons, no parents, nor any equal.

5) Jesus (pbuh) was not a god but only an very elect, but human, messenger of God.

6) God does not hold anyone responsible for anyone else's sin. He is also a merciful God who forgives without requiring a price for His mercy.

7) Only a person's own actions and worship in this life will decide their final reward.

8) God has specifically molded Islam to be His final message to all of mankind without exception. It supersedes all previous messages from Him. For this reason, this time God himself has promised to preserve His final message from the tampering fingers of mankind.

Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") are taught that throughout the ages, God sent messengers to all tribes and nations all over the earth beginning with Adam (pbuh), the first prophet of God. Every time a messenger of God would pass away, his people would begin to fall back on their evil deeds until a few generations later they would have managed to have completely corrupted His original message to them. When His message was in danger of being completely obliterated by these people, He would chose from among them a new messenger to receive the original, uncorrupted message and convey it to them. Some of them would listen. Others would not. However, the message would always be available for those who wanted it. In this manner, God made sure that all of mankind would always have access to His true religion, no matter where or when they lived. It would then be up to them to seek out this knowledge.

Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") are further taught that each messenger was sent only to his own people. His message was then fine-tuned to suit them. Thus, the basic message would be the same for all messengers: "God is one!, Worship Him alone!". However, the details of each people's worship would be molded to suit their lifestyle, state of knowledge, and so forth. This was also true for Jesus (pbuh). Jesus (pbuh) was sent specifically to the Jews, and only to the Jews. It shall be demonstrated how one of the most fundamental reasons which lead up to the corruption of his message was that those who came after him attempted to force his religion upon those who it was never intended for: The Greeks. The Greek's hatred of the Jews and all Jewish practices was one of the foremost reasons why the religion of Jesus (pbuh) ended up being modified to suit their preconceived picture of "God", and "worship".

The previous and future articles will by Allah's will demonstrates how the corruption of the religion of Jesus (pbuh) progressed in the following stages:

1) Jesus (pbuh) came to show the Jews how their religion had been changed from that preached to them by Moses and their previous prophets (pbut).

2) Jesus (pbuh) called the Jews back to the true religion of God sent down upon their previous messengers. Jesus (pbuh) himself observed every single aspect of the religion of Moses (pbuh) steadfastly and uncompromisingly. He fasted as Moses (pbuh) fasted, he worshipped as Moses (pbuh) worshipped, he refrained from tasting a single pig, he believed in circumcision and himself was circumcised, he observed the Sabbath, never having violated it. Up until the crucifixion, never once

did he deviate from the actions of a true follower of the religion of Moses (pbuh). He commanded his followers to follow the religion of Moses (pbuh) and threatened severe retribution from God for all who would forsake a single aspect of this religion.

3) Jesus (pbuh) departed from this earth and his apostles continued to follow his teachings religiously. They too followed the religion of Moses (pbuh) as Jesus (pbuh) had done before them and commanded

them to do. For the first three hundred years after the departure of Jesus (pbuh), "Christians" would merely be Jews who believed that Jesus (pbuh) was the Messiah. For the first three decades after the departure of Jesus (pbuh), his followers would continue to worship in the synagogues of the Jews and observe all of the aspects of the religion of Moses (pbuh) without exception.

4) A little after the departure of Jesus (pbuh), a Jew named Saul of Tarsus persecutes Jesus' followers severely and kills them. He has never met Jesus (pbuh) in person.

5) Suddenly Saul claims to be receiving "visions" from Jesus (pbuh). He befriends the apostle Barnabas until he manages to replace his reputation as a persecutor and killer of Christians with a reputation as a true convert.

6) Now Saul parts ways with the apostle of Jesus (pbuh), Barnabas, and decides to preach to the Greeks. He claims that the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) are lazy, misguided, hypocrites. He claims that it was necessary for him to constantly guide the apostles out of their ignorance into the truth of God which he was receiving in his "visions". The Greeks hated the Jews with such a passion that he

found it all but impossible to convince them to accept the Judaism that Jesus (pbuh) practiced his whole life and taught his apostles to carry on after him.

7) Saul finds it necessary to "simplify" the religion for the Greeks and make it more acceptable for them.

8) Saul continues to simply the religion and mold it closer and closer to the Greek's established beliefs until all that is left is "faith" without work. He then goes on to justify this doctrine of "faith" and give it credibility by claiming that Jesus (pbuh) was not merely a normal human being but a "son of God" and that this "son of God" died in atonement for the sins of all mankind. In this manner, he manages to convince the Greeks (and other Gentiles) to accept the simplified "religion of Jesus". This is because, unlike the Jews, their religion already accepts "trinities", and "father gods" and "son gods", and the death of gods, and the resurrection of gods, and the incarnation of gods, and divine savior gods, and the eating of the flesh of gods, and the drinking of the blood of gods...etc. All of these concepts are old news to them. He becomes a great leader among them and is named

"Saint Paul".

9) "Saint Paul" now writes extensively and gains more and more "converts".

10) Once his converts begin to exceed the number of converts to the more strict and demanding religion of the apostles of Jesus (pbuh), they begin to kill the followers of the apostles and persecute them.

11) The followers of "Saint Paul" are challenged to prove their claims of "son of God", "initial sin", ..etc. through the scriptures and prove that Jesus (pbuh) or God had anything to do with them. They cannot. There are too many verses which declare that there is only ONE God in existence and that He does not hold mankind responsible for the sin of any man. Examples of these verses are available to this day (e.g. Isaiah 43:10-11, Ezekiel 18:19-20, Deuteronomy 24:16...etc.). Thus,

it becomes necessary for them to create a "Trinity" so that they can have three Gods but claim that they only worship one. The ancient "trinities" of Greek philosophy are redefined and applied to God

almighty in order to define this new doctrine of "three gods in one". Once again, the "Trinity" they borrowed from their ancient paganism could not be proven through the Bible, so it became necessary for them to receive divine "inspiration" from God commanding them to "clarify" their Bible so that the "trinity" could be seen clearly (such as 1 John 5:7). These "clarifications" would only be discovered by the scholars of Christianity centuries later. They would later provide irrefutable proof of how, when, and by whom these "clarifications" were inserted into the Bible.

12) In the fourth century CE., the followers of the "trinity" manage to enlist the aid of the pagan Roman empire. They wield the power of this pagan nation to "cleanse" the earth of the "heretical" and "blasphemous" followers of the apostles. They later launch campaigns of "inquiry" to "convert" them.

13) "Trinitarian" beliefs become the only truly correct religion of Jesus (pbuh). The writings of Paul are collected and today they form the majority of the books of the new testament. The books of the apostles are burned. They are all "apocryphal" lies. Even Gospels which were considered by the very first Christians "canonical" and authentic, were slowly purged out of the Bible and labeled "apocryphal". Those who are found concealing the books of the apostles are burned to death with

their books. Paul's followers obtain copies of the Gospels of the apostles. They copy them but with drastic modifications to the doctrine found therein. They claim that the apostles wrote them. These books are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The additions to these books will continue for many more centuries. Only centuries later will Christian scholars begin to see the evidence that

the claimed authors did not write these books.

14) Muhammad (pbuh) is born. He follows the religion of Abraham (pbuh) which was handed down to him and all Arabs from the father of the Arabs, Ishmael, the eldest son of Abraham (pbut). Upon

reaching the age of 40, God sends the angel Gabriel to him to teach him His final message, the message of Islam. He tells him that the "people of the book" have changed the religion of Jesus (pbuh) and have altered it from a religion of submission to one God to a religion where multiple gods are being worshipped. He is told that he will be the last messenger to mankind and that his message is to be directed to all of mankind including the Jews and Christians.

15) The Jews and "Christians" claim that Muhammad (pbuh) is a liar and a false prophet. He has just copied the Bible in order to write his Qur'an. Just as the Jews refused to accept Jesus (pbuh) as a true messenger of God, so too do both the Jews and the Christians refuse to believe

Muhammad (pbuh).

16) Muhammad (pbuh) passes away. The Trinitarians continue with their burning at the stake any Christian who opposes the "trinity" or openly speaks about the discrepancies in the Bible. They launch campaigns of "inquiry" to cleanse the earth of all remnants of believers in one (monotheistic) god. The sentences of death by these inquisitions become so unbounded in their nature that whole nations are sentenced to death. Just one single holy decree of the Trinitarian church in 1568 would later condemn THREE MILLION men women and children from the Netherlands to the scaffold as heretics in one fell swoop. No cry of "holocaust" would be raised for these poor people, they would simply be erased from history.

17) The Church loses it's power to the scientists and is pushed into a dark corner. Without the threat of death hanging over their heads, countless Christian scholars begin to publish countless thousands of books exhibiting detailed examples of contradicting verses and evidence of modification to the Bible. The ancient manuscripts of the Christian society are studied in detail and slowly, the previous picture begins to come together. Countless excuses are made by the church and those who's livelihood and power depend on these established beliefs. They now begin to give practically every single verse of the Bible "abstract" meanings. They tell their flock to have blind faith. They convince their flock that they can not understand the Bible without the "interpretation" of the church. They tell their flock that Jesus (pbuh) never means what he says and that every reference he makes to following the religion of Moses (pbuh) is not meant to be taken "literally" but was meant by Jesus (pbuh) to have "hidden" meanings totally in opposition to the obvious meanings. Only they can tell you what these "hidden" meanings of Jesus (pbuh) were.

18) Copies of the original Gospels of the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) begin to surface. They are found, of all places, hidden away in the capital of Christianity, the Vatican itself. These Gospels (Such as the "Gospel of Barnabas", or the "Shepherd of Hermas") have never fallen into the hands of Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") and were written long before the birth of Muhammad (pbuh), yet they confirm practically every single one of the claims of the Qur'an, including the fact that Jesus (pbuh) is not God, and that a messenger would be coming after him from the descendants of Ishmael (The father of the Arabs). Copies of these books have a tendency to disappear mysteriously.

Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") are told that when God created mankind, He gave them "The Choice". They were told that they could either live their lives then die and fade out of the picture, like the animals do. Or they could elect to be held accountable for their actions. If they accepted the accountability, then the potential reward will be great. The potential retribution would be equally great.

With mankind's acceptance of this accountability came their free will. God gave mankind a free will to chose to either worship Him or to disobey Him. Out of God's infinite mercy, He then assisted mankind with many factors in order to guide them to His true path and the ultimate reward. Firstly, He sent the messengers. In this manner, no matter how much mankind tried to corrupt His religion, it would always be available to those who searched for it.

Secondly, He supplied mankind with minds. He gave them these minds in order to be able to distinguish between right and wrong using logic. If they see someone worshipping fire, and they see that the fire can not hear their prayers nor answer their calls, then no matter how much these fire-worshippers "spititualize" their worship and tell them of the great miracles the fire has worked for them and how it has answered their prayers, and how it "loves" them so, and how it provides warmth and protection for them, their logic will refuse to believe their concoctions.

Finally, God gave mankind an inborn sense called "Fitrah". This "Fitrah" is the small voice inside each one of us which tells us "this doesn't feel right". When we pick up a gun for the first time in order to kill someone, we have to fight mightily in order to overcome our "fitrah" which tells us that killing is wrong. In a similar manner, all mankind is born automatically knowing that "God is one". They must really fight themselves for a long time and be continually persuaded by those who are around them to believe otherwise. This is how they end up worshipping fire, stones, statues, multiple gods, and other things. It is forced upon them in spite of their "fitrah" as they grow up.

This series goes back to the arguments of the original apostles. We will start with the "Trinity" and work our way backwards through history. We will see that there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for the "trinity" in the Bible. Once the "trinity" has been disproved we will see how the rest of these fabricated beliefs will unravel one by one till we return to the original teaching of Jesus (pbuh). This will demonstrate why the church teaches their flock that they can never understand the Bible unless the Church "explains" it to them. We hope you will find this information illuminating.

Stay tuned for the proof......

Misheal Al-Kadhi

Proof that the "Trinity" is a fabrication of mankind

The "domino" syndrome:

As promised in part 10, we shall now move on, by God's will, to the first stage of what shall henceforth be referred to as "The domino syndrome". The Domino syndrome consists of the demonstration of how the innovations foisted upon the religion of Jesus (peace be upon him) by the tampering fingers of mankind after the departure of Jesus (pbuh) are all based upon the myth of the "Trinity" which mankind concocted in the third century AD We shall start with this myth and

show how there is not a single verse in the whole Bible which validates this concoction. This shall (inshallah) be proven through the words of the Bible itself and some of Christendom's most eminent

scholars only. It shall be demonstrated (inshallah) in this and the coming articles how once the "trinity" is discarded, the rest of the fabrications will immediately follow suit. This will include such

fabrications as "The Son of God", "The initial sin", and "The atonement". The true historical facts surrounding these matters shall also be presented and the true history of the Christian nation both during the lifetime of Jesus (pbuh) and then immediately after his departure will be presented, once again from the writings of eminent Christian scholars only and the words of the Bible itself. First some ground rules:

First: "Blind faith" or "Prove all things"?:

Before actually getting down to the proof, let us first establish the ground rules. The Bible in our hands today tells us that Christians are taught by Jesus (pbuh) himself:

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment." Mark 12:29-30.

They are also told "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" 1 Thessalonians 5:21

and "For God is not the author of confusion" 1 Corinthians 14:33.

So, contrary to the teachings of most members of the clergy, Jesus (pbuh) did not want his followers to believe everything they were told on "blind faith", but he wanted his followers to believe "with all thy mind". He wanted us to THINK in order to protect his words from corruption. Let us comply with the teaching of Allah's elect messenger, Jesus (pbuh), and see where the truth and our minds will

lead us:

Second: The true teachings of Jesus(pbuh):

The three monotheistic religions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-- all purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as "Tawhid" in Islam, this concept of Oneness of God was stresses by Moses in the Biblical passage Known as the "Shema", or the Jewish creed of faith: "Hear, O Israel The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4)

It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus when he said "...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again:

"And your God is One God:

there is no God but He" (The Qur'an, al-Bakarah(2):163)

Christianity has digress from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century CE (see historical details in coming articles inshallah, or get a copy of the book "What did Jesus really say?"). This doctrine, which continues to be the source of controversy both within and without the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons -the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - in one divine being.

Christian sects are many and varied. However, the majority of Christians around the world believe in the following four basic concepts:

1) The Trinity.

2) The divine Sonship of Jesus (pbuh).

3) The initial sin. and

4) The Death of "the son of God" on the cross in atonement for the original sin of Adam.

Everything else is pretty much relegated into the background. A Christian can be saved and enter heaven by simply believing in the above creeds. According to St. Paul, the previous law and commandments of God are worthless, this simple belief will guarantee for all comers a place in heaven "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law".

Romans 3:28.

Christianity as it currently stands is the interpretation of St. Paul of what he personally thinks that Christianity should be. Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") are told that the message of Jesus (pbuh) was directed towards the Jews alone as verified in the Bible (Matthew 15:24 "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"). The verses wherein he is claimed to have told his disciples to preach to the whole world are now recognized as later insertions (we will get into

this in a little more detail in the future). God almighty never intended for it to become the religion of the masses as He intended Islam to be. There is much internal evidence in the Bible to support this claim.

Christianity as it stands today has been reduced to an interpretation of the words of Jesus (pbuh) within the context of what Paul taught rather than the other way around which is the way it should be. We would expect Christianity to be the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and that the words of Paul and everyone else would be accepted or rejected according to their conformity to these "Jesuit" teachings. However, we will notice in what follows that Jesus (pbuh) never in his lifetime mentioned an initial sin, or an atonement. He never asked anyone to worship him, neither did he ever claim to be part of a trinity or anything else. His words and actions are those of a loyal messenger of God who faithfully and faultlessly followed the commands of his Lord and only told his followers to do the same and to worship God alone (John 4:21, John 4:23, Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8 ...etc.).

Just one of the countless examples of this placement of the words of Paul above the words of Jesus can be seen in the following analysis: Jesus (pbuh) is claimed to have been prepared for his sacrifice on the cross from the beginning of time and was a willing victim (otherwise they would have to claim that God is a sadistic and torturous God). However, whenever Jesus (pbuh) was asked about the path to "eternal life" he consistently told his followers to only "keep the commandments" and nothing more (Luke 18:18-24, Matthew 19:16-21, John 14:15, John 15:10). Not once did he himself ever mention an initial sin or a redemption. Even when pressed for the path to "PERFECTION" he only told his followers to sell their belongings. He departed leaving his followers with the very dire threat: Matthew 5:18-19

"For verily I say unto you, TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven".

Obviously, heaven and earth have not yet passed. The fact that you are reading this bears witness to

this very simple fact. So Jesus (pbuh) is telling us that so long as creation exists, the commandments will be required from us. Anyone who will dare to say otherwise, until the end of time, will be called

"the least in the kingdom of heaven". Jesus (pbuh) had foreseen mankind's attempt to distort and annul his commandments (the commandments of Moses, pbuh), which he had taught his followers to

keep and himself had kept faithfully till the crucifixion, and was warning his followers in no uncertain terms to be wary of all those who would attempt to do so.

Not long after, Jesus departs. Now Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul), a man who never met Jesus (pbuh), comes along. After a lifetime of persecuting the followers of Jesus (pbuh) and killing them, Paul "sees the light", receives a "vision" from Jesus (pbuh), and takes it upon himself to explain what Jesus really meant. Paul claims that the law of God is worthless, decaying and ready to vanish away and faith in the crucifixion is the only requirement for a Christian to enter heaven (Romans 3:28, Hebrews 8:13...etc.). Who do Christians listen to, Jesus or Paul?. They listen to Paul. They take the words of Paul literally and then "interpret" the words of Jesus (pbuh) within the context of the words of Paul. No one takes the words of Jesus (pbuh) literally and explains the words of Paul within the context of Jesus' words.

According to this system of explaining the words of Jesus within the context of Paul's teachings, Jesus never actually means what he says but is constantly speaking in riddles which are not to be taken literally. Even when people attempt to cite the words of Jesus as confirming the teachings of Paul with regard to the initial sin, the atonement, the divine Sonship ...etc. they never bring clear and decisive words where Jesus actually confirms these things. Instead, they say such things as

"When Jesus spoke of the Exodus he was *REALLY* speaking of the atonement" or so forth. Are we to believe that Paul is the only one who can say what is on his mind clearly and decisively while Jesus (pbuh) is not capable of articulating what he means clearly and decisively but requires interpreters to explain the "true" meaning of what he said, and to explain how, when he spoke of the

commandments, he was not talking of "the commandments" but of a spiritual commandment and that they will now tell you what this spiritual commandment is that Jesus never managed to talk clearly


It is interesting to note that Jesus was not talking in riddles when he commanded his followers to keep the commandments but was talking of the actual physical commandments of Moses. This can be clearly seen by reading for instance Luke 18:20 where Jesus spells out in no uncertain terms what he means by "keep the commandments". In the past, we have posed the following points to Christian clergy:

1) According to you, Jesus is supposed to have been prepared for the "atonement" from the beginning of time. He should know that it is coming.

2) Whenever he was asked about the path to "eternal life" (i.e. Luke 18:18-24 ..etc.) he consistently told his followers to only "keep the commandments" just as he had "kept my father's commandments" ..etc.

3) Even when he was pressed for more, he only told his followers that to be *PERFECT* they need only sell their belongings.

4) Not once did he mention an "atonement" or an "initial sin".

5) The commandments he spoke about were the commandments of Moses and not some "spiritual" commandments. This can be seen in the text itself where Jesus (pbuh) explicitly spells out some of the commandments of Moses one by one.

6) St. Paul, a disciple of a disciple, is the one who is followed by Christianity and not Jesus. Jesus' teachings are explained within the context of Paul's words and not vice versa.

Whenever we presented these points to a member of the Christian clergy we would always be greeted with a response such as "Well, uh...... Don't take Jesus' words literally ..uh......".

Third: The fabrication of the "Trinity":

The myth of the "trinity" as originally fabricated four centuries after the departure of Jesus (see historical details in future articles) and taught to Christians ever since is the merging of three entities into one while remaining three distinct entities. In other words: Three bodies fold, or blend, or merge into one body so that they become one entity while at the same time exhibiting the characteristics of three distinct and separate entities. It is described as "a mystery". The first definition of the Trinity was put forth in the fourth century as follows: "...we worship on God in the trinity, and Trinity in Unity...for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal...he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the trinity..." (excerpts from the Athanasian creed).

When Christians speak of worship, God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are claimed to be one being. Otherwise they would have to explain such verses as Isaiah 43:10-11:

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after However, when they speak of "the death of God" it is Jesus (pbuh) who is claimed to have died and not God or the "trinity".

Now the three are separate. When God is described as having "begotten" a son it is not the "trinity" or Jesus (pbuh) which has begotten, but a distinctly separate being from the other two.... there are many such examples.

From the Bible's standpoint:

When Christians are asked to present a verse of the Bible validateing the "trinity" they usually jump directly at such verses as Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II Corinthians 13:14...etc., to "verify" the "Trinity". What is happening here is that they usually do not completely comprehend what is being asked of them. When someone askes for a verse of the Bible which validates the "Trinty" what he is asking for is a verse which claims that "Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost are three gods, but they are not SEPARATE gods, but ONE single god".

Some people are so bent on seeing a "trinity" everywhere they look that they do not bother to actually read the verse they are quoting. Just because the words "God", "Jesus", and "Holy Ghost" appear in one verse does not mean this verse requires a "trinity". Even if this verse also contains the word "one" this still does not necessarily require a "trinity". If I say "Joe, Jim, and Frank speak one language" this is not the same as saying "Joe, Jim, and Frank are one person". Let us clarify this with examples:

1) Matthew 28:19 " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:":

If President George Bush told General Norman Schwartscopff to "Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union", does this require that these three are one physical entity?. They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are merged into one physical entity. Also remember that the "Great Commission" as narrated in the Gospel of Mark, Bears no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark 16:15). As we have already begun to see in previous articles, Christian historians readily admit that the Bible was the object of continuous "correction" and "addition" to bring it in line with established beliefs. They present many documented cases where words were "inserted" into a given verse to validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor

of the Toronto Star says in his book For Christ's sake (pp. 102): "All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later".

2) I Corinthians 12:4-6 "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all":

If I were to say: "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Santa Claus. There are different kinds of service, but the same Government. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men". Do God, the U.S. Government and Santa Claus now form another "trinity"?. The same verse which moments ago required a "trinity" magically can now be understood without the need for a trinity. Is it impossible to receive "gifts", "services", and "works" except from ONE person?. Once again, we see that many people do not bother to actually read the verses in front of them. They are told to see trinities so they see trinities.

Why does everything have to be so abstract?. If this is the true nature of God then why can't the Bible just come out and say "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are physically joined in one being" or "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same". Is this so very hard?. Look at how much less space this would require. Look at how infinitely more clear and decisive that would be. Look at the clear cut decisiveness of Deuteronomy 4:39

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

God does not philosophize and speak all the way around matters. He speaks clearly and in no uncertain terms so that there can be no doubt as to what he meant. If there was a trinity why would he not simply just come out and say so, just as clearly and decisively as he does when he speaks about his uniqueness?. Think about it.

3) II Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen."

If I say: "May the genius of Einstein, the philosophy of Freud, and the strength of Schwarzenegger be with you all" does this require all three to be joined in a "trinity"?.

An interesting point is that when people try to force a "trinity" upon a certain verse of the Bible they always do it with the New Testament and not the Old Testament. Why is that?. Did the countless prophets of the Old Testament not know about the "trinity"?. Did God not see fit to tell the Jews about the trinity?. Think about it.

When someone speaks to someone else about a specific matter, they usually spend the majority of their time explaining the major issues and much less time on side-issues. For instance, if I wanted to give

someone my favorite recipe for chicken parmesan I would spend most of my time speaking about the ingredients, their amounts, their order of combination, the amount of time needed to cook each one and so on. I would spend very little time (comparatively) talking about how to set the table or what color bowl to serve it in. When comparing this observation to the Bible, we find that for a matter of such profound importance, the "trinity" is never mentioned in the Bible at all. Sound preposterous?. Read on.

First verse:

The verse most often quoted by almost every Christian around the world in defense of the "trinity" is the verse of 1 John 5:7


This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse we were asking for. However, this verse is now universally recognized as being an "insertion" and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version ...etc. Have unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this?. The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives

the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott". Mr. Wilson says:

"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious".

Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that they were added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Dr. Arius, and God's people.

Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "trinity" therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God decided to "inspire" someone to insert this verse in order to "clarify" the "true" nature of God as being a "trinity". Notice that mankind was being "inspired" as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being "inspired" (see previous articles).

If these people were being "inspired" by God then why did they need to put these words into other people's mouths. Why did they not just openly say "God inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name"?. Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to "inspire" his "true" nature?. Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?.

It was Sir Isaac Newton who made public this forged insertion:

"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are

becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three

witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza". Gibbon, "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire", IV, p. 418.

Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a "colt"?, or was it an "ass and a colt"?. see point 30 in the table of part 6 of this series) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy.

For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read:

"And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed them in the And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest".

Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of any description of the "trinity" which is supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who rode this ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of mankind. Which is more important to Christian faith, the "trinity" or the description of an ass?.

Second verse:

Another verse quoted in defense of the "trinity" is the verse of John 1:1:


1) First of all, these words are acknowledged by every erudite Christian scholar of the Bible as the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria, who claimed no divine inspiration for them, and who had

written them long before John or Jesus (pbut) were born. Groliers encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading "Logos"("the word"):

"Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make logos a central concept ......In the New Testament, the Gospel According to Saint John gives a central place to logos; the biblical author describes the Logos as God, the Creative Word, who took on flesh in the man Jesus Christ. Many have traced John's conception to Greek origins--perhaps through the intermediacy of eclectic texts like the writings of Philo of Alexandria".

2) Internal evidence provides serious doubt as to whether the apostle John the son of Zebedee wrote this Gospel himself. In the dictionary of the Bible by John Mckenzie we read

"A. Feuillet notes that authorship here may be taken loosely".

Such claims are based on such verses as 21:24:

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true."?????.

Also see 21:20, 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20-23. The "disciple who Jesus loved" according to the church is John himself, but the author speaks of him as a different person.

3) The Gospel of John was written at or near Ephesus between the years 110 and 115 (some say 95-100) of the Christian era by this, or these, unknown author(s). According to R. H. Charles, Alfred Loisy, Robert Eisler, and other scholars of Christian history, John of Zebedee was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE, many decades before the fourth Gospel was written.

4) C.J. Cadoux writes in "The life of Jesus":

"The speeches in the fourth Gospel (even apart from the earlier messianic claim) are so different from those in the Synoptics, and so like the comments of the Fourth evangelist himself, that both cannot be equally reliable as records of what Jesus said: Literary veracity in ancient times did not forbid, as it does now, the assignment of fictitious speeches to historical characters: the best ancient historians made a practice of composing and assigning such speeches this way".

5) Even if we are to take this verse as authentic, then we must notice the following: In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did John speak Greek?), the first occurrence of the word "God" is the Greek word (Hotheos) which means "The God", or "God" with a capital "G" to denote a proper noun. The second occurrence of the word "God" is the Greek (Tontheos) meaning "a god", or "god" (any god, not necessarily the almighty). So, if the translators were consistent in their translation, they would have written the above verse as follows: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you

will find exactly this wording). If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word is used to describe the devil, however, now the system has dishonestly been reversed: "(and the devil is) the god of this world". According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the devil should also have been written as "God" with a capital "G". If Paul was inspired to use the same word to describe the devil, then why should we change it?. Why is this word translated as simply a "god" when referring to the devil, but translated as the almighty "God" when referring to a "word"?. Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?.

The apologists always manage to conveniently side-step this issue by conveniently forgetting the Hotheos/Tontheos problem and never mentioning a valid explanation for why *ONE* word was translated *TWO* different ways in two different verses, but rather, they say "I don't personally like the New World Translation of the Bible, thus, everything you say is wrong".

Even if you do not like the New World Translation, you still have not explained the selective translation!. This is blind faith talking here.

One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands today is that it forces us to look at a Jewish book and the Jewish language itself through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called "original" manuscripts available today are written in Greek. The Jews had no trouble reading such verses as Psalms 82:6:

"I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"

or Exodus 7:1: "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh"

while still affirming that there is only one God in existence and vehemently denying the divinity of all but God almighty. It is the continuous filtration of these manuscripts through different languages and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church's extensive efforts to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew Gospels (see part 9 and future articles) which has led to this misunderstanding of the

verses. If I were an American, and I were to tell the citizens of China "Hit the road men", we would more than likely find countless people beating the street with sticks. Did they understand the words?. Yes!. Did they understand the meaning?. No!.

Mr. Tom Harpur says in the preface to his book:

"The most significant development since 1986 in this regard has been the discovery of the title "Son of God" in one of the Qumran papyri (Dead Sea Scrolls) used in relation to a person other than Jesus.....this simply reinforces the argument made there that to be called the Son of God in a Jewish

setting in the first century is not by any means the same as being identical with God Himself".

For Christ's Sake, pp. xii.

6) In the Qur'an we are told that when God almighty wills something he merely says to it "BE" and it is. This is the Islamic viewpoint of "The Word". "The Word" is literally God's utterance "BE". This is held out by the Bible where thirteen verses later in John 1:14 we read:

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth".

Remember, the words between brackets are those of some commentator and not those of the original author.

Third verse:

The third verse which Christians claim validates the doctrine of the trinity is the verse of John 10:30: "I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE".

This verse, however is quoted out of context. The complete passage -starting with John 10:23- reads as follows:

John 10:23-30 "And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one".

In divinity?. In a holy "trinity"?. No!. They are one in PURPOSE. Just as no one shall pluck them out of Jesus' hand, so shall no one pluck them out of God's hand. Need more proof?. Then read John


"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one".

Is all of mankind also part of the "trinity"?.

Forth verse:

Well, what about the verse "He that hath seen me hath seen the father". Let us look at the context: John 14:8-9

"Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?".

Philip wanted to see God with his own eyes, but this is impossible since no one can ever do that (John

1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time", see also 1 John 4:12...etc.),

so Jesus simply told him that his own actions and miracles should be a sufficient proof of the existence of God without God having to physically come down and let himself be seen every time someone is

doubtful. This is equivalent to for example John 8:19:

"Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also".

If we want to insist that when Philip saw Jesus (pbuh), he had actually physically seen God "the father", then this will force us to conclude that John 1:18, 1 John 4:12, ..etc. are all lies.

Well, is Philip the only one who ever "saw the father"?. Let us read John 6:46

"Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father".

Who is this who "is of God" you ask?.

Let us once again ask the Bibles: John 8:47 "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God".

And 3 John 1:11 "Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God".

Have all people who have done good also physically seen God?.

Such terminology can be found in many other places, read for example 1 Corinthians 6:15-17

"Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit",

and also Ephesians 4:6 "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all".

In the New Catholic Encyclopedia (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating official approval) we read:"......The formulation 'One God in three persons' was not solidly established into

Christian life and it's profession of faith until prior to the end of the *FOURTH* century. But it is precisely this formulation that has the first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. AMONG THE

APOLISTIC FATHERS, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (emphasis added).


Top Harpur writes in his book "For Christ's sake":

"What is most embarrassing for the church is the difficulty of proving any of these statements of dogma from the new Testament documents. You simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St. Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself anywhere explicitly claim to be the second person in the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father. As a pious Jew, he would have been shocked and offended by such an Idea....(this is) in itself bad enough. But there is worse to come. This research has lead me to believe that the great majority of regular churchgoers are, for all practical purposes, tritheists. That is, they profess to believe in one God, but in reality they worship three.".

From the Qur'an's standpoint:

"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and his word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him:

so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Three": desist!, it is better for you, for Allah is

one god, Glory be to him, Far exalted is he above having a son.

To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs". The Qur'an, Al-Nissah(4):171

"Or have they (mankind) chosen gods from the earth who raise the dead.

If there were therein gods besides Allah then verily both (the heavens and the earth) would have gone to ruin.

Glorified be Allah, the lord of the throne from all they ascribe (unto Him)"

The Qur'an, Al-Anbia(21):20.

Think about it. If there were more than one God in existence, and one wanted you to do one thing and the other wanted you to do another then which one would have his way?. If one wanted

the sun to come out of the West and the other wanted it to come out of the East then which one would win?. Verse such as Mark 14:36, and Matthew 26:39 clearly exhibit that God "The father" and God "the son" both have distinct wills. Further, we read:

"Allah coineth a similitude:

A man in relation to whom are several partners quarreling, and a man belonging wholly to one man. Are the two equal in similitude?.

Praise be to Allah, but most of them know not". The Qur'an, Al-Zumar(39):27.

In other words, which would be more conducive of harmony: For an employee to have two bosses

quarreling over him, or for each employee to have only one boss?.

"Say (O Muhammad, to the disbelievers): If there were other gods along with Him, as they say, then they would have sought a way against the Lord of the Throne. Glorified is He, and High Exalted above what they say!

The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him, and there is not a thing but hymneth his praise; but you understand not their praise. Lo! He is ever Clement, Forgiving".

The Qur'an, Al-Israa(17):42-44.

"And say: Praise be to Allah, Who has not taken unto Himself a son,

and Who has no partner in the Sovereignty, nor has He any protecting

friend through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence".

The Qur'an, Al-Israa(17):111.

"Allah has not chosen any son, nor is there any God along with Him;

else would each God have assuredly championed that which he created,

and some of them would assuredly have overcome others.

Glorified be Allah above all that they allege. Knower of the invisible and the visible!

and exalted be He over all that they ascribe as partners (unto Him)!".

The Qur'an, Al-Muminoon(23):91-92.

Think of the fairytales of the "Gods" of the Roman empire and the "Gods" of the Greeks. These "Gods" were constantly at odds with each other and declaring war against each other and it was mankind that was always caught in the middle.

From a logical standpoint:

If Jesus (pbuh) is part of a divine trinity which makes up the essence of God almighty, and Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross, then what happened to God almighty? (Remember, Christians claim that they pray to one "triune" god and not three separate gods). Did the trinity die?. Did it continue to exist in a severely crippled form?. If I am made up of heart, mind, and soul, and one of them *DIES*; what happens to the rest of me?. Are they ONE or THREE?. If God, Jesus, and the Holy

Ghost are three names for the same being, (definition of the "trinity" required by Isaiah 43:10-11) and not three separate gods, then the "death of Jesus" is just another way of saying "the death of God (the "father")", which is also another way of saying "the death of the Holy Ghost".

Remember when Jesus (pbuh) is alleged to have died (Luke 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost")?. When people die they go to their Lord to be judged. If Jesus (pbuh) was, as claimed, a part of a trinity and the trinity is only ONE god (otherwise Christians would have to admit to worshipping multiple gods), then Jesus was with God in a trinity before his death. It was only after his death that he was claimed to have left God and gone down into hell to be tortured for three days. However, this verse tells us a completely different story. It claims that Jesus' soul was somewhere other than already with God (otherwise it would not have to go to him) and was now going to God. Also read John 17:11:"....I come to thee. Holy Father". And John 17:13: "And now come I to thee"...etc.

Sadly enough, most Christians are taught to brush off these matters with words like "It is uncomprehendable, that is why it must be true", or "believe blindly or you will lose your soul".????. Have we so soon forgotten "For God is not the author of confusion"

1 Corinthians 14:33.

When Jesus (pbuh) allegedly went to hell for three days, did the trinity die then reside in hell also,

or was a third of the trinity ripped away from the whole, then killed and tortured in hell while the remaining two thirds (of God?) remained in it's crippled form outside hell?. Who was overseeing the

heavens and the earth while all of this was happening?. A crippled trinity?. No one?. If it is possible for one third of the "trinity" to die independently of the other three then it becomes obvious that they are separate and independent and not ONE God, this contradicts Isaiah 43:10-11. However, if they are indeed ONE God then the death of this one God contradicts many verses such as Jeremiah 10:10 "But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king".

Also, if the giver of life is dead then who shall bring Him back to life?.

God almighty is claimed to have "begotten" Jesus (pbuh). He is claimed to be the "father" of Jesus. Naturally a father is present before he "begets" his son (however you wish to define "beget"). Before Jesus (pbuh) was "begotten", was the "trinity" a "duality"?. Was God complete?. Explain Isaiah 43:10-11. If Jesus (pbuh) was "begotten" then he is not eternal, but the definition of the trinity which was concocted in 325 AD when the trinity was first defined requires the co-eternity of God and Jesus (pbuh) (see rest of series). There are many such questions to be raised about this supposed trinity which defy logic. When someone loves God "with all thy mind" and they "Prove

all things; hold fast that which is good" are they not presented with countless contradictions regarding the "trinity"?. We are speaking about the logic of Jesus (pbuh) here and not blind faith. Jesus is beseeching to us to use our minds but we would rather follow others who demand blind faith. Jesus (pbuh) tells us that "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him". John 14:23. Sadly, the same people who love him dearly have now been taught that in order to love Jesus they must completely disregard everything he ever taught his followers and must follow others who are better able to explain his message than himself. In effect, his words have been totally abandoned (see below).

If the Trinity designates god as being three separate entities - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and if God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His

own Son. This is not exactly logical (see below).

Jesus (pbuh) claims to not even know when "that day" is "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" Mark 13:32. Is he not part of God?. Is the "trinity" not one god?. The fact that one of them has knowledge not available to the other "two thirds" is a clear indication that they are distinct and separate beings, and not three faces of one being.

If I have three balls of clay and I press them together into one ball then they become ONE but now it is impossible to retrieve the original three exactly as they were originally. If I have three bricks and I stack them above each other then I can separate them but I can not call the three bricks ONE brick.

Fourth: What is a "Trinity"?:

In the above historical analysis (more details shall be presented in coming articles by Allah's will), we learned that in 325AD., the Trinitarian church approved the doctrine of homoousious meaning: of


of the second person of the trinity with the Father. The doctrine became known as the Creed of Nicaea. But they also went on to develop the doctrine of "blind faith". This is because those who

developed the "Trinity" doctrine were unable to define it in any manner that could not be refuted by the unwavering Unitarians Christians through the Bible. In the beginning they tried to defend the

"Trinity" through logic and the Bible. This continued for a long time until the Trinitarian church finally gave up on ever substantiating their claims through the Bible. So they demanded blind faith in their doctrines. Anyone who did not believe blindly and dared to question them would be branded a heretic and tortured or killed. We will provide only a small sampling of the verses of the Bible which refute this definition:


Jesus and God can not be co-equal because the Bible says: John 14:28

"... my Father is greater than I". Obviously if God is greater than Jesus (pbuh) then they can not be equal. We also read: Mark 13:32

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father". If Jesus and God were equal then it follows that they will be equal in knowledge. But as we can see, God is greater in knowledge than Jesus (pbuh).


God is claimed to have "begotten" Jesus (pbuh). Jesus (pbuh) is claimed to be the "Son" of God. "Beget" is a verb which implies an action. No matter how you define what God actually did in order to "beget" Jesus (pbuh), any definition must require that God almighty performed some action and then Jesus (pbuh) came into being. Before God performed this action Jesus was not. After God performed this action Jesus came into being. Thus, not only is Jesus (pbuh) not eternal, since there was a time (before the "begetting") when he did not exist, but he can also never be co-eternal with God since God was in existence at a time when Jesus was not. This is very simple grade-school logic.

(Note: before the begetting, was God a "Duality"?)


First go back and read the comments on co-equality and co-eternity. Next, remember when Jesus died? (Mark 15:37, John 19:30). If God and Jesus are one substance then God died also. But then who was governing all of creation?. Remember Luke 23:46:

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."?.

If Jesus and God were one substance then Jesus (pbuh) would not need to send his spirit to God because it is part of God, who is also Jesus. Remember Matthew 26:39

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

If Jesus and God were one substance then this ONE substance must only have ONE will. Remember Matthew 27:46

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"?.

If Jesus and God are one substance then how can ONE substance forsake itself?. ....... and on and on.

Tom Harpur says: "The idea of the Second Person of a Holy Trinity knowing what it is to be God-forsaken has only to be stated to be recognized as absurd" For Christ's Sake, pp. 45.

Even explaining the supposed "Trinity" away as a "mystery" does not hold water. In 1 Corinthians 14:33 we read "For God is not the author of confusion". Thus, confusion can never be His very nature which composes Him.

Go to your local library and you will find countless books on this topic. THIS is why blind faith was demanded, and THIS is why millions of Christians were put to death as heretics.

The matter of the "Trinity", however, can not be completely analyzed by tackling such verse only. It is necissary to also tackle the verses which alegidly place Jesus (pbuh) in the position of the "Son of God". Those verses will, by Allah's will, be tackled in the comming article.

Stay tuned.

Misheal Al-Kadhi

Back to Answering Christianity

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