Just Give Them The Truth

God, Jesus, Jesus is not God, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Bible, Paul, Christianity, Pagan

Apostle Paul’s Lies Exposed! ( Part 3 )

Apostle Paul’s Lies Exposed!

I hate the DISCIPLES!

 

Article from :

http://derrickbowdown2yhwh.blogspot.com/2015/03/part-iii-apostle-pauls-lies-exposed-i.html

“I HATE THE REAL DISCIPLES! Let’s kill them!” –Paul of Tarsus…

the thorn in paul's flesh was the disciples

Now that is quite a catchy and strong quote above isn’t it?

Do I really expect you to believe that Paul hated Jesus’ original Disciples and their ministry so much that he wanted to do them harm?

My answer to your question is, yes I expect you to believe it. Not because I am saying so but because the bible shows us that this is so.

If at this point I have already offended you then you need to stop reading now because your mind is not opened to see anything other than your own views. So don’t continue to waste your time…

To the rest of you let’s find out if the bible actually reveals the dissension between Paul and the true Disciples.

If you haven’t read the first two parts of this series, I urge you to read them first because so much valuable information was shared in them:

Part I.

PART I. APOSTLE PAUL’S LIES EXPOSED!

http://derrickbowdown2yhwh.blogspot.com/2015/03/part-i-apostle-pauls-lies-exposed.html

The IMPOSTER/APOSTLE Satan’s ANTI-CHRIST! Paul! part 2

http://derrickbowdown2yhwh.blogspot.com/2015/03/part-ii-apostle-pauls-lies-exposed.html

In the last chapter we learned that Jesus warned His Disciples that they would meet the false prophet after He dies.

Jesus told them that this false prophet will have just as much spiritual power as they will have.

The false prophet will be able to heal the sick and raise the dead. Just like Superman has Lex Luthor as his nemesis, this new false prophet will be the Disciples archenemy or adversary!

The time is now at hand!
Jesus has died and the true Disciples are devoutly carrying on His mission of repentance, love and returning to the obedience of the Laws of Moses. We have been falsely told that the Jews turned their backs on Jesus.

A-ha! However, this not the case.

We learn that thousands upon thousands of Jews listen to the Disciples.

The Jews all start to turn away from the false gods of Greece and the Roman Empire in masses (See: Acts 21:20).

This is not acceptable to the Greeks and Romans; for an awakened Jew is a dangerous Jew!

They are nervous because they have placed 3 evil puppet kings on the throne in Israel and are losing control of the people of God.

·         King Herod the Great, (c. 74-4 BC) King HerodAntipas, (20 BC- AD 40) and King Herod Agrippa II (AD 27-100)

They Greeks and the Roman Empire and churches have also paid a considerable amount of money to corrupt the hierarchy of the Jewish Council.

So many of the leaders are completely in their pockets and their motives are from a GREED perspective.

However, now, because of the Disciples preaching the true message of YHWH GOD that they received from their teacher/rabbi/lord Jesus, the knowledge of God is now increasing among the people.
With this knowledge, civil unrest is also increasing. The High Council is corrupt and the people are rebelling against them as they once did when they went to John the Baptist for the truth, which caused the finances to dwindle.

The High Council realize something has to be done immediately before this powder keg explodes.

The Jewish Council’s powers were limited by the Laws of Moses. This is why they were never allowed to kill Jesus.

The corrupt High Council was given more power to supersede the Laws of Moses by Herod and Rome.

In stealth, the Jewish Council hired a vigilante mob and gave the mob “police powers.”

The Mission 

To seek out and kill Jesus’ Discipleleaders of the ministry as they did when they killed Stephen in Acts 7:58, 59.
The mob used tactics of false accusations, torture and death as intimidation hoping this would stop the rest of the Jews from following Jesus’ original message!

These tactics didn’t work at all!

They forgot that these people were proud descendants of Jews that were used to oppression! These Jews are the offspring of Jews that were delivered from the hands of EgyptAssyria and Babylon!

They cannot be stopped that easily. Jesus’ message grows like an out of control wildfire! The corrupt council’s methods have failed! The Greeks and Romans now have to somehow step in to control the council’s mess.

This growing ministry of the Disciples has to be stopped at all cost! 

The Greeks and Romans knew that if they intervene to stop the Disciples this would only make the Disciples heroes and martyrs to the people. They watched this happen when a simple prophet named Jesus was killed.

They were determined not to make that mistake again. The Disciples would have to be destroyed from the inside and it would have to be one of their very own that does it!

We are told that Judas Iscariot is allegedly dead. So it would have to be another spy from within the Disciples that destroys the ministry of Jesus.

To destroy the ministry from within someone would have to infiltrate the Jews, gain their trust and be able to brain wash one of the original Disciples and convince him to turn against the other Disciples.

Enter the SPY… Saul of Tarsus, better known as theApostle Paul

paul the corrupter of jesus teachings

In Acts 7:58, Luke introduces us to one of the members of the vigilante mob by the name of Saul who we know as Paul.

Saul/Paul admits that he was the designated coat watcher of the mob as they viciously attacked and killed Stephen. Saul/Paul wasn’t an innocent bystander at all.

Paul admits that he took part in much of these crimes against Jesus’ original Disciples and that he took great pleasure in his crimes.

He also admits that as the head of these vigilantes Paul was paid a considerable amount of wealth:

  • ·         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: And profited in the Jews’religion above many my equals in mine own NATION, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. GALATIANS 1-13, 14

Wow! Notice what Paul actually admits in these two verses:

  1. Paul speaks of the “JEWS”religion as if it wasn’t a religion he ever served. (Remember Paul was a Roman, and if you are writing a book you can pretend to be anyone you want. a Jew, a Roman a Martian! Gullible People will believe anything.)
  1.      Folks as a true Roman and not a real Jew,Paul admits that he never liked anything about the religion of the Jews and that he went above measure more than anyone to persecute those nasty Jews and their churches/synagogues! Which as you just heard Paul openly called them them the “church of God.” (Folks isn’t that what Satan does? Kill Steal and Destroy anything belonging to the church of God?)
  1. Paul admits that he was a Roman HIT-MAN who “profited” financially more than any of his “EQUALS” or other Jews in his“OWN NATION that chose to be followers of the original traditions of their forefathers!

(Personal Note:)

  • Just to reiterate again. Just because a man claims to be a Jew or  may be an alleged Hebrew by birth does not mean you love your own people or that you love their God either. Judaism nor serving the Most High God was ever Paul’s intention folks, you read his words yourself! Now you cannot say you didn’t know!

As you can now see, Paul lied to the Jews.

He never studied traditional Hebrew/Judaic studies under Gamaliel as told to us in Acts 22:3.

As we said above, Paul’s vigilante mob’s heinous tactics did not succeed at all. The Hebrews/Jews grew stronger in their knowledge and faith in YHWH because of the ministry of Jesus and the Disciples.

The Jews stopped giving money, tithes and tribute to the corrupt Jewish Council. With no money or food supplies coming in to pay their hired goons, the council was forced to disband their goon squads. These satanic mercenaries now have to find other sources of employment. This is not acceptable to Saul/Paul.

In Galatians 1:13,14 Paul was just boasting to us about how he was better than his equals or other Jews in his ownnation that loved the Laws of God. He does not want to go back a broken and defeated man.

Paul is presented a new mission by the satanic Greeks and Romans which could be a financial gold mine if he plays it correctly!

Although he is raised as an assimilated Greek citizen the Greco-Romans know that Paul has knowledge of the Hebrew language.

Paul is to blend into normal Jewish culture and then satanically infiltrate the original Disciples and turn one of the Disciples against the others.

We in America and in Europe have used these tactics for centuries. Destroy your enemies by bribing one of their own brothers to do your dirty work. I’m sure African descendants know exactly what I’m talking about…

A perfect plan is implemented by the sons of Satan. 

The Hebrew people are naturally a very gullible and forgiving nation. Paul and his Greco-Roman friends devise a plan that leads the Jews to believe that Paul has suddenly and miraculously converted to the ministry of Jesus!

Amazing and clever isn’t it? 

The Jews in Jerusalem are not going to just openly believe this devil’s story. As any good spy would, Paul has to start slowly and build up his reputation among the Jews in his own country first and then work his way up the ladder to do the damage to the original Disciples…

A WOLF comes in SHEEP’S CLOTHING!

Paul attempts to infiltrate the Disciples.

AGENT PAUL OF ROME

Was Paul one of the original Disciples? Did Paul ever see Jesus in the flesh? No.

Jesus spent three long hard years with His Disciples, his own Brothers such as James and Jude and also with friends whom He totally trusted. His family and friends grew to understand his mission and parables.

  • Did you the reader ever find it odd that Jesus would return unexpectedly and speak to Paul?

If Jesus was so opened to speak from heaven why wouldn’t he tell his original Disciples that He was commissioning Paul into the ministry?

Oh wait! Jesus DID warn the Disciples about Paul the False prophet remember? Yes! On Three different occasions! Let’s repeat the warnings shall we?

Warning #01 to the Disciples:

  • Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come saying, I JESUS WAS THE Christ; and shall deceive many.MATTHEW 24:4, 5

Jesus warns the Disciples that this false prophet will deceive many people!

Warning #02 to the Disciples:

  • Then if any “MAN/Paulshall say unto you,(the Disciples) Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christ’s, and false prophets, and shall show GREAT SIGNS and WONDERS insomuch that, if it “WERE” possible, they shall deceive the very “ELECT/JEWS!.

Behold, I have told you beforeMATTHEW 24:23-25

And again Jesus said, I told you before! This was a reminder to the Jews that someone would begin claiming that Jesus was the Messiah. So that pre-warning that Jesus is talking about are these two verses below to the Disciples that they were never to teach that He was Jesus the Messiah to anyone ever!

Jesus says he is not the messiah folks

So now that Jesus has laid the clear ground work for us to know what the lies would be, we can now move on to the story…

After knowing what Jesus has taught them about Paul, the Disciples were terrified of Him and his lynch mob hired mercenaries of the Puppet High Council and Rome.

PAUL CALLED TO THE MINISTRY NO

Wouldn’t you think at some point and time that Jesus would have spoken to at least one of the Disciples and tell them that He has a new champion for the spiritual mission?

Especially a supposed champion who has written more than half of the New Testament based only on an alleged voice? 

  • If Jesus magically appeared to Paul don’t you think he would have also spoken to at least one of the original disciples to put them at ease? Come wouldn’t He at least have told his very own brother James?

I really don’t think Jesus would have left His Disciples clueless about Paul do you? As you can see these are all written satanic lies of the Greco-Roman churches.

Not being able to stop the Jews from listening to the teachings of Jesus about returning to the one true God of heaven, and not being able to destroy the followers’ zeal for YHWH, Paul must go undercover and infiltrate this return movement and stop it at all cost!

Even though Paul was an ethnic Jew, Paul was raised as a citizen of the country Greece. The Grecian lifestyle was all Paul really knew and that is where his loyalties were.

That is sort of understandable.

  • If you were an ethnic German born in America your loyalties are normally towards your birthplace.
  • Being a born and bred Roman, Paul must attempt to live all aspects of life like a regular Hebrew citizen.
  • He must pretend to love the traditions of his ancestors so that he will not look out of place in the Jewish towns.

Paul later wrote about this deceptive infiltration to his friends in Corinth and said:

  • To the Jews Ibecame as a (JEW), in order towin Jews; to those under the law (I Pretended to be a Jew!)

    I became as one under the LAW-THOUGH(NOT)
    being) myself under the law–that I might win those under the law. 1st CORINTHIANS 9:20 
    (Paul admits he never obeyed the laws of Moses at all!)

Paul is indeed admitting the truth and says out of his own mouth that he was a satanic fraud and only

PRETENDED to be a JEW!!!” 
So that he could secretly infiltrate and win over the original Jews! Wow! What a devil!

  • (Note): Now Paul wasn’t attempting to admit this fact to you and me at all.

This was a private letter to one of his Roman friends in the town of Corinth.

Did you understand that fact? I’ll say it again. This was a “PRIVATE” letter.

YOU AND I WERE NEVER supposed to have FOUND THIS OUT FOLKS!

  • The reason Paul is so open and honest about his devious plan is because you and I werenever meant to know this truthful information folks.
  • This Galatians chapter apparently is a progress report of his success of infiltrating the Jews.Total Deception here folks!

Wow what a clever spy you are Paul! I wonder will Tom Cruise play Paul in the next Mission Impossible movie called:

Mission Impossible 8– False Jew! Rated G.C. for
(Gullible Christians)
Paul says his hidden agenda was to pretend to be a follower of Jesus

Paul knew at some point and time that he may need some additional help.

So he also attempted to gain allies who didn’t necessarily believe in the laws of Moses to assist him in his mission:

  • To them that arewithout law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.1st CORINTHIANS 9:21

Paul tells us: “To those outside the law I BECAME as oneOUTSIDE the law, meaning that “To those who were sinners I Paul myself, became a sinner, I became an Adulterer, I became a Liar, I became a Murderer, I became a Fornicator, I Became an Idolater, I became a Drunkard, I became Covetous.

Not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ so that I might infiltrate and win those outside the law.

Now you and I both know that neither Jesus nor the Disciples ever preached a doctrine known as the: “Laws of Christ.” This man Paul is a liar!

Let’s move on…

In the foreign countries Paul’s notoriety is supposedly growing now.

Even though it is an act Paul zealously continues his ministry that Jesus was the messiah the son of God and that he is about to come back to the earth to take his followers to heaven.

That was really the extent of Paul’s whole gospel message because that is all Paul says that he really knew.

  • ·         And I brethren, when I came to you,came not with Excellency of speech or ofwisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For (I) determined not to (KNOW) ANYTHING among you, save JESUS CHRIST,and Him crucified1st CORINTHIANS 2:1, 2

So as you can see apparently this proves my point that Paul’s Damascus Road story from my last chapter was truly a lie.

Paul just openly admitted that he was never taught by Jesus in his vision and he was not taught by the Disciple Ananiaseither as to what Jesus’ true message ministry really was!

So there you have it! Admission of lies!

Let’s continue…

As we said Paul’s notoriety as a fiery preacher is growing rapidly in the foreign gentile countries. Training camp is now over and it is now time to move up to the big leagues! Paul has to take his show on the road and go to Jerusalem and attempt to win over James, the brother of Jesus, and the rest of true Disciples of Jesus.

THE CONFRONTATION:

The time is here! Paul has just arrived in Jerusalem to face the true Disciples. However there is a problem! Jesus’ true Disciples want nothing to do with Paul.

  • ·         And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed notthat he was a disciple. ACTS 9:26

Preachers always lie to us and claim the authentic disciples welcomed Paul with open arms to join them.

As you can that isn’t biblically correct!

Remember, Jesus had already warned them about Paul so they knew Saul/Paul was a demon who worked as an agent for the corrupt leaders of the High council and Rome!

Paul wants desperately to join up with Jesus’ original Disciples and carry out his mission.

They are not willing to meet with him because they have been in hiding since the time Paul and his mercenary killing squad killed Stephen.

Still fearing the wrath of the Jewish Council, the headDisciples are still in hiding.

There are Disciples openly preaching the word of God. But to ensure that no once can officially turn them in, the identities of true leaders of the ministry are unknown to Paul.

The Disciples have heard about Paul’s alleged change but they are in fear of him.
Real Jews who have heard Paul preach in Gentile lands have heard the lies of Paul. The disciples have also heard rumors that Paul is still teaching against the Laws of Moses so have no way of knowing just which stories are correct.

So they must keep alert and stay fearful of a trap. 

Just as an undercover cop needs an introduction to infiltrate the mob, Paul also needs to find a guide or intercessor to gain a formal introduction to the disciples.

Paul the Roman now uses an alias and calls himself by the name of Saul from the tribe of Benjamin.

In reality, since there are no historical records to verify the lineage of any Hebrew/Jew,  there is no one to confirm or deny Paul’s claims.

The stealth mission is in play:

.

  • But Barnabas took him, and brought him to theapostles, 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.ACTS 9:27   

To the Disciples Barnabas has proven himself as a loyal member of the faith. Because of his word they agree to meet with Paul.

The place has to be in the open so that they can have room to escape in case it is a trap. The meeting takes place among the crowds during the Jubilee festival celebration:

  • And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren (Barnabas) received us gladly. And the dayfollowingPaul went in with us unto James; and ALLthe elders were present. ACTS 21:17-18

Luke claims that it was Barnabas that allegedly welcomes Paul to Jerusalem and assures him that the meeting with the Disciples will take place at the festival.

Luke says that James and “all” of the elders were present. 

Now this may not be true at all because Paul contradicts Luke and says that he only met James at this meeting:

  • Then afterthree years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him FIFTEEN DAYS! Butother of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. GALATIANS1:18, 19

Something is wrong with these two stories! Don’t you agree?

One or both of these stories are lies and they contradict each other badly!

Now either it was Barnabas that introduces Paul to the Disciples or it was Peter?

Paul says that he spent 15 days with Peter before the actual meeting! So I guess the Barnabas story was a lie huh? Yep probably! Wow!

Now how can this be

 Shouldn’t Peter also be in hiding with the other Disciples?

Yet Paul claims that Peter welcomed him in his home for 15 days! Now that is half of the month!
Now tell me: When did Peter and Paul become such friends hmm?

Are you also starting to smell a rat yet?

I know we can all see that there is something fishy about Peter? 

We will discuss Peter in a later chapter.

Now just for the sake of argument I would tend to believe Paul’s version that he only saw James at the meeting.

I know that if I was the leader of the Disciples I do not think I would be willing to take a chance and expose the rest of the leading members to a possible trap.

So now we have the confrontation at last!

james and paul meet

  • And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among theGentiles by his ministry.  And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord… ACTS 21:17-20

Seeing that Jesus allegedly spent an additional 40 days teaching the disciples after the crucifixion, One would have thought that Jesus would forewarn his brother about Paul right?

However, James is at least willing to listen to Roman Paul, Oops! I mean, Hebrew Saul now.

After pleasantries, Paul talk about the alleged things that he is doing in the name of God in the Gentile lands.

After Paul finishes bragging about his own ministry,

James has a few comments of his own about Jesus and the Jews:

James SAYS:

  • And said untohim, Thou seest, brother, how many THOUSANDS OF JEWS there are whichbelieve; and they are all ZEALOUS of the LAW.ACTS 21:20

James wants Paul to take notice of all of the people surrounding him at this festival. James tells Paul that all of these thousands in attendance at this festival are allfollowers of Jesus’ ministry!

(Personal Note):

  • When your unlearned ministers attempt to make you believe that the Jews turned their backs on Jesus by quoting from John 1:11which says: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” 
  • You will now understand that John 1:11 is a satanic lie added by the Greco-Roman Churches and purposely added so that we will all hate the Jews.

So again James tells Paul that all of the people in attendance are followers of the Laws of Moses and that they are in love with his Jesus’ original message!

UR UM? Let that marinate in your spirit folks?
Jesus’ brother and leader of the True Disciples of Jesus. Tells Paul that thousands upon thousands of Jews do not see any difference in the ministry of Jesus and the Laws of Moses! Wow!

Say what James!?
According to Christianity today, this cannot be true right? For Paul says

the laws of Moses are over and we are now under grace?
We see here that Paul was against the Hebrew God and against His Law:

  • But now we are DELIVEREDfrom the LawROMANS 7:6·         A man is not justified by works of the Law, but by faith in Jesus Christ? GALATIANS2:16·         For as many as are of the works of the Law are Under the Curse? GALATIANS 3:10

    ·         In that He said “A new covenant He had made the first Old. Now that which Decayeth and wasteth Old is ready to Vanish Away.” HEBREWS 8:13

    ·         BLOTTING OUT” the HANDWRITING” of ORDINANCES that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it OUT OF THE WAY,” nailing it to his cross. COLOSSIANS 2:14 Signed. Satan/Paul

Yes folks, every verse of Paul’s above contradicts what James just said about the Laws of Moses and the true words of Jesus!

Yet you have just read on your own where James and the rest of the disciples clearly did not believe Jesus died to free them from the laws of Moses!

How can this be folks? Why is Paul’s doctrine different from that which Jesus taught James and the Disciples? Maybe because Paul is say um? A DEMON!

James then reveals something special to Paul.

James reveals to Paul and also to you and I that these same thousands of Jews in attendance are all devoted fanatical followers of the Laws of Moses! 

From this statement we can come to the UN-deniableconclusion that the Jesus’ TRUE Disciples:

  1. Were never taught that Jesus would die for their sins.
  2.  They did not believe that through Jesus BLOODthey can be SAVED,
  3. They believed in following the LAWS OF MOSESas Jesus taught them to observe.

After giving Paul their “statement of faith” and teaching Paul the truth that Jesus taught them,

James has a few questions of his own for Paul about the rumors that he is hearing about Paul’s hidden agendas!

Uh oh!
It’s about to get hot in here folks! It’s time to put the kids to bed because this conversation is about to get really steamy and juicy!

JAMES asks Paul the hard questions!

With a raised eyebrow, James looks at Paul and says:

  • ·         And they are informed of thee that thouteachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to “FORSAKE” Moses, saying that they ought NOT to “CIRCUMCISE” their children, NEITHER to walk after the“CUSTOMS.” ACTS 21:21

Wow! James didn’t pull any punches or sugar-coat his questions did he?

Notice that James is not asking Paul what he is teaching theGentiles as our ministers have overlooked.

James is asking Paul what he is teaching the “JEWS” that live among the Gentile nation. Big difference here folks!
James has a reason to be skeptical.

#01, because Jesus already warned them about a false prophet that would come.
#02, James already heard the rumors of what Paul was teaching.

Now Paul alleged claimed that he has been converted to the ministry.

But if that were true, James wants to know then:

Why is Paul’s ministry so Satanic in nature and goes against everything Jesus stood for?

So it is now question and answer time for Paul!

  • It is now time for Paul to either: “Put up or shut up!”

James asks Paul, if the rumors are true that he is teaching the Jews that they should forsake the Laws of Moses and also not circumcise their children.

The tension mounts! 

While Paul thinks of a creative way to answer James’ question, let’s skip ahead and see if the rumors are true Did Paul teach against “circumcision” and that Jesus ended the laws of Moses and the “Ordinances?”

  • For neither CIRCUMCISION counts for anything nor UNCIRCUMCISION but keeping the commandments of God. 1STCORINTHIANS 7:19

According to Paul God’s law of circumcision is stupid and useless? Satan!

Does Paul teach us that it was Jesus that causes the end of circumcision? Oh yes!

  • Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye beCIRCUMCISED Christ shall profit you nothing. GALATIANS 5:2

As you can see the rumors are correct! More Satan!

Paul says above that if the Jews continue circumcising their children then the message of Jesus is of no good to them! Huh? Satan!

Seeing as Paul has never heard Jesus’ message at all,

How does Paul know any of this

While Paul is still thinking about what to tell James, let’s look at more of Paul’s original doctrine. Did Paul teach against the Laws of Moses? Yes he did:

  • For I TESTIFY again to every man that isCIRCUMCISED, that he is a debtor to do thewhole law.4.  Christ is become of no effectunto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are FALLEN FROM GRACE.GALATIANS 5:3, 4

So are we to believe that the Jews have fallen from God’sgrace because they continue to obey God’s covenant of circumcision? Isn’t this what Satan would also say folks? Yep folks, this is what SATAN Himself would teach!

This man is a liar!

  • ·         Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject toORDINANCES.” COLOSSIANS 2:20

Paul asks the question why he should have to follow the “ordinances” of Moses if he believes in Jesus.

Why would Paul even ask such a ridiculous question? Where is he getting this stuff from? We know it wasn’tfrom Jesus or the true Disciples. Satan!

Lastly, as concerning the end of the Laws of Moses Paul says the following:

  • BLOTTING OUT” the Handwriting ofORDINANCES that was AGAINST US which was contrary to us, and took it OUT OF THE WAY, nailing it to his cross.COLOSSIANS 2:14

You can see from Paul’s own letters that he openly taught against circumcision.

Paul also taught the Jews that when Jesus died on the cross, He allegedly “blotted out” the written Laws of Moses. Satan!

Paul claims Jesus did this because the laws were allcontrary and against us. But more it was contrary to Paul’s lifestyle that he wasn’t going to give up for God, Jesus, or the Dali Lama!

satan proud of paul

Wow! What a satanic liar. Now you know the truth!

Now let’s return to the confrontation between James and Paul!

(Personal note) The Disciples did not have access to Paul’s private “EPISTLES” like we have today in the verses above. So their information was limited about Paul’s true sinister motives!

James is patiently waiting for an answer from Paul about the rumors.

There was no way for James to know what you and I know about Paul’s epistles.

Other than being in actual attendance and hearing the messages of Paul James has no way of knowing if what the people are accusing Paul of is true.

So what is Paul’s answer to the question?

Deny_Deny_Deny_macro_text

How convenient that the scriptural verses do not give us Paul’s response to James’ question.

However, when reading Acts 21 verses 22 thru25, you can come to the conclusion that Paul tells James that the rumors are all false.

How can we come to that conclusion? 

Well we can conclude this because if Paul would have confirmed the rumors that he was teaching against the law then James would have known the total truth about Paul’s lies and that he was setting a trap for him and the other Disciples!

Could you imagine what James would have done if he knew Paul actually said the following verses?

  • For Christ is the“END OF THE LAW” for righteousness to everyone that believeth. ROMANS 10:4
  • For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are“NOT UNDER THE LAW” but under grace.ROMANS6:14

Do you think if James would have heard or read the two verses above from Paul that James would think Paul was a man of God?

Heck no! Of course not! 

James and the other followers of Jesus might have killed Paul on the spot.

Since James did not know of verses like the ones above, Paul is temporarily safe.

keep calm and deny everything

Still unsure about Paul, in Acts 21:22-25 James decides to test Paul’s character and make him prove himself to them and to the other Jews at the festival.

James orders Paul to go into the temple with four new converts of Jesus’ original ministry and perform the sin purification ritual in front of everyone!

Now what was James’ reason for making Paul do these rituals?

The end of verse 24 tells us the reason and also tells us what Jesus actually taught the true Disciples as well:

  • ·         …and all may “know” that those things whereof they were informed of thee, are “NOTHING”; but that thou (PAUL) thyself also walkest orderly, and “KEEPEST THELAW.” ACTS 21:24

Now come on my brothers and sisters? Compare the major difference in the doctrines of Paul verses that of the true Disciples of Jesus. You cannot say these two men are teaching the same thing?

Paul says the law of God have ended yet James says the law have not ended, but the people obey both, the Laws of God and what Jesus taught them. Meaning it was the same thing folks!

Who doesn’t get that now? 

  • Which one of these men should we believe?

The one personally taught by Jesus to obey the LAWS OF GOD? 

or
The one who only claims to have seen an imaginaryvision of Jesus and teaches the world to disobey God’s commandments like Satan?

People with common sense will choose James because Jesus told him the truth. However we all know that common sense is really not all that “common” is it? Let’s continue…

James tells Paul that he must do the purification ritual to prove to the people that the rumors about him were lies and that HE/PAUL does walk righteously and KEEPS THE LAW:

Guess what folks? Have your pastors ever taught you that:

The purification offering includes the ritual of the:“ANIMAL SACRIFICES!”

Yes the same ritual that Christians and Imposter Paul/Satan claims Jesus ended! I thought you should know…

Now unlike James and the Disciples, you and I have already read and know that Paul was lying all the time and didn’t keep any of the Laws of God.

We’ve already read the scriptures where Paul said that Jesus freed us from such purification rituals of the Mosaic Law right?

So if Paul were a true Apostle of Jesus as he claims, Paul was supposed to refuse the order of James to enter into the temple to perform the rituals.
If Paul were sincere about serving Jesus’ ministry then Paul was supposed to tell James directly to his face that Jesus freed us from the laws of Moses as he said in Galatians below!

  • ForI TESTIFY again to every man that isCIRCUMCISED, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.4.  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye areFALLEN FROM GRACEGALATIANS 5:3, 4

Being the coward that he is, Paul does not say any of this to James.

So what do you think Paul’s response was when James gave Paul a direct order?

Was it to MAN-UP and tell James He is crazy and that Jesus freed us from the law?

Or,

Was it to be a sniveling weak coward and bow down to James and be a hypocrite and submit to the Laws of Moses?
Let’s see:

  • ThenPAUL took the men, and the NEXT DAYpurifying HIMSELF with them entered into the temple,to signify the accomplishment of the days ofpurification until that an OFFERING should be offered for every one of them. ACTS 21:26
    SNIVELING COWARD PAUL LUNAPIC GIF

Yep, folks! A weak sniveling coward it is!

The early Jewish Christians continued to do what Jesus instructed them to do, which was to forever follow the laws of Moses including the following:

  1. Circumcising their sons.
  1.  Purification rituals ofanimal sacrifices in the temples
  1.  Keeping thetraditions of their fathers.
  1.  Some of them even continued to take theNazarite vow,which was a Mosaic practice of dedicating oneself to God and following strict rules ofpurity. (See Numbers 6:1-21.)

If Paul’s vision of Jesus were real then his loyalty should have been to Jesus and not with the Disciples.

Paul’s obligation to Jesus would be to teach James and the other Disciples this new truth. But clearly this wasn’t the case!

Paul was supposed to teach them that Jesus has freed them from the rituals under the “LAW” and that we are now under “GRACE” and not under the “Law?” Paul should have used the words that he said in Galatians:

  • For if Ibuild again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. GALATIANS 2:18, 19

In his secret gospels Paul says the following words as concerning obeying the Laws of Moses:

  • “If I now decide toobey the laws of Moses, the same laws which I Paul have destroyed in the minds of the people, then I have once again made myself asinner. I will not do that ever again because I amdead to God’s laws!”

Now the above scripture is what Paul taught outside of the ear range of James and the other Disciples.

This would be a bold and dynamic statement of faith if Paul would have said these things to James.

However, Paul’s true cowardly character comes out instead and Paul ignores his own gospels and does what James commands!
Does that make any sense!

This proves to us that Paul would do anything to fool the Disciples and the people and get them to trust him.  Paul writes to us and admits he does these very things often:

You shouldn’t be surprised at Paul’s actions because remember, infiltrating the ranks of the Disciples was hisinitial mission.

  • ·         To the Jews I became as a (JEW), inorder to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the LAW-THOUGH(not being) myself under the law–that I might win those under the law. 1stCORINTHIANS 9:20

Paul admits that even though he really does not obey any of the Mosaic Lawhe pretended to be a JEW so that he couldwin them over.

So like any spy, you lie, steal, cheat and do whatever it takes to trick your enemy into believing you are ONE OF THEM…

Paul is a deceiver/Satan!

Paul’s only reason for going into the Temple and doing the Laws of Moses was to fool the Disciples.

Paul will do or say anything to be accepted by the Jews and by the Disciples…

Now Paul has done as James commanded and performed all of the rituals of the Mosaic Law.

So far Paul has successfully hid his true ministry from James and the other disciples. Paul now feels like his mission of infiltrating the ranks of the Disciples is near. Since there was no one around to dispute Paul about the lies in his ministry,

Paul feels like he has accomplished his task of successfully convincing James that he is a sincere convert. Paul feels like he is about to be officially embraced by the Disciples until something drastic happens! Unexpected guests!

  • And when the seven days were almost ended, theJews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him. ACTS 21:27

Asian Jews have traveled down to Israel for the great festival. They have heard Paul’s hidden gospels up close! We now have witnesses that can testify against Paul’s lying ministry! Let’s see what they had to say:

  • ·         Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men everywhereagainst the people, and the LAW, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.ACTS 21:28

Wow! Paul is now busted!

Paul lied right to James’ face and said that he does obey all of the laws of Moses. Paul even went as far as going into the temple and offering the animal sacrifices just to prove to James and the others that he is sincere.

The Asian Jews have just revealed Paul’s hidden ministry to all of the Jews at the festival and temple. James now knows the truth and there is nothing Paul can say.

The infiltration plan of Paul’s has failed miserably!

James knows that Paul is the false prophet that Jesus warned him and the other Disciples about earlier in Matthew 24:

  • For there shall arise false Christs, andfalse prophets, and shall show GREAT SIGNS and WONDERS insomuch that, if it “WERE” possible, they shall deceive the very ELECTMATTHEW 24:23-25

James is not deceived and neither are the “ELECT/CHOSEN” Jews! Hallelujah!

In Acts 21: 30 39 James withdraws and leaves this liar to deal with the angry Jewish mobs.

The angry mob seizes Paul and starts to beat him unmercifully in the streets. Suddenly the Roman soldiers step in and seize Paul saving him from the hands of the Jewish mob.

Even though the truth has come out about his true intentions Paul attempts to reason with the angry Jews.

It is in Acts 22:1-21 that Paul then tries to convince the Jews of his alleged Damascus Road Conversion story. After the Jews hear all of the heinous things that he has done they know he is not one of them and proclaim the following:

  • And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, away with such a fellow from the earth: for it isnot fit that he should live.ACTS 22:22

To quiet the screams of the crowds Paul is placed in shackles and led away into the castle by the Roman guards. All is now over right? Wrong! It is just beginning…

  • I am above the law!  I AM A ROMAN! Paul of Tarsus…

Paul is arrested for incensing a riot among the Jews near the Hebrew Temple. In Acts 22 Paul now knows that his infiltration plans have vanished.

Seeing no reason to keep up the charade of being “Jewish,” Paul shows his true nature again. He is now a ROMAN!

The Chief Captain commands the Soldiers to bind and whip Paul until he confesses his crimes against the people.

Fearful, Paul wants to save his own skin and now decides that he is no longer a filthy “JEW” but instead an honorable and distinguished “ROMAN!”

  • And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a ROMAN and un-condemned? ACTS 22:25

Since the chances of being accepted by James are totally over Paul decides to pull out his Roman badge of honor before the soldiers can punish him.

Paul is not fearful of these soldiers because he knows that no true Roman can be beaten by a lowly civil servant soldier.

  • Then the Chief Captain came and said unto him, Tell me art thou a ROMAN?” (HE/(PAUL) SAID YEA)! ACTS 23:27

The Captain doesn’t beat Paul and sets him free.

Are you a JEW or are you ROMAN?

My Brothers and Sisters as you can see Paul is aChameleon. He will change his colors, religions or ethnicity whenever it is in HIS best interests!

apostle paul lying chameleon
If it walks like a devil, if it talks like a devil, then it usually is a “DEVIL!”

Paul never feared these soldiers at all because he had gone through this process once before in an earlier chapter of ACTS and acknowledged himself to be a ROMAN there as well:

  • And the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul. The magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore depart, and go in peace.
  • But Paul said unto them, they have beaten us openly uncondemned, BEING ROMANS, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily?  
  • Nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out. And the sergeants told these words unto the magistrates: and they feared,
  • when they heard that THEY WERE ROMANS.  And they came and besought them, and brought them out, and desired them to depart out of the city.ACTS16: 36-39

So as you can see Paul is very clever and he knows how to avoid hazardous situations. Let’s get back to the end of the story…

The Roman Captain saves Paul from the hands of the mob. The Jews are outraged that the Roman soldiers have taken Paul from them.

In Acts 24:1-9 Ananias the high priest does not know that Paul was working for the Greco-Romans and goes to the governor to demand custody of Paul.

The Governor lets Paul speak in his own defense about the accusations against him:

  • Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.

And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city; neither can “they”PROVE the things whereof they now accuse me.ACTS 24:11, 13
Like we said earlier, when confronted with your lies and risk being caught?

Deny_Deny_Deny_macro_text

Just like he lied to James, once again Paul lies to the Jews and conceals his true Satanic ministry.

As we can see Paul is in total denial of his own Gospels.

Paul smugly pleads for his freedom because none of his accusers can prove that he was teaching against the Laws of Moses. Guess what?

Paul is right on that point because there are no tape recorders or video to show his lies!
No one can prove this unless his gospel letters show up or one of the Greeks come and testify, and we know that wasnot going to happen. 

Now, folks, remember Paul’s real Paul’s true message that claimed Jesus freed us from God’s Law and that we are now under “GRACE?” Well…

You are not going to believe what Paul says next!

  • But this I CONFESS UNTO THEE that after the way which they call HERESY, SO WORSHIP “I” the God of my fathers, BELIEVING ALL THINGS” which are written in THE LAW and in the ProphetsACTS 24:14, 15

Can you believe the lies this man will swear to even in a court of law? Paul makes a Solemn Oath and SWEARS in front of the eyes of God and says:

  • “Oh council I SWARE TO YOU, the Heresy these men speak about me is untrue! “I worship ONLY the God of our Fathers and I don’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah, I believe and FOLLOW all of the things (CIRCUMCISION INCLUDED) which are written in the LAW? Huh?

wolf_in_sheeps_clothing1

Does this man have a conscience at all? How can he stand in the eyesight of God and then swear that he believes and obeys all things which are written in the “Laws of Moses?” What can you expect from a WOLF in SHEEP’S clothing? We know that this man is a total liar because of verses like the ones below:

 

  • Ibecame as one under the LAW-THOUGHnot being (Myself) under the LAW. 1STCORINTHIANS 9:20

 &

  • Just remember thatGod “DOESN’T CAREwhether WE (EAT) IT OR NOT,” We are “NO WORSE OFF” if WE “DON’T” eat it, and NO BETTER OFF if WE “DO” eat it. TYNDALE1STCORINTHIANS 8:8

Is it okay to lie in front of God to save your own life? No!
The Jesus that Paul never knew says:

King James Bible
“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” Matthew 16:25:
I guess Paul was to busy killing the saints when Jesus spoke those words huh?

Paul lies over and over again.

Now after being captured and facing death Paul abandons his own gospel views of Jesus and claims that he absolutelybelieves all of the Laws of Moses and that he follows every part of it and every statute:

What is your opinion of Paul now?

Johnny Cochran couldn’t do a better job of defense than this!

According to Paul’s own testimony, we are not under “Grace” but we are still under the Laws of Moses!

Did Paul forget his own writings when he claims YHWH made a big mistake and gave us a faulty Law that no one could follow?

  • ForIF the first covenant had beenFAULTLESS then should no place have been sought for the second

“For finding FAULT with them, he saith, Behold, the days come saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” HEBREWS 8:7, 8

Clearly this man believed YHWH was a God of errorsbefore his trial.

Wouldn’t you expect Satan to confess the very same words?

Total Blasphemy here folks!

So according to Paul YHWH is a faulty God and gave us a law to purposely lead us to Hell. Amazing huh?

Paul then goes on to misquote and pervert Jeremiah 31:31 for his own satanic purposes! If this man cannot make up his own mind about who he will serve why should we listen to him at all?

Now remember Paul told us that Jesus allegedly became ourlast sacrifice!

This means he believes no other Mosaic sacrifice was needed.

By Paul’s own admission he lies and tells the Council that his original purpose for coming to Jerusalem was to eagerly and willingly offer up Alms and to perform the PurityAnimal Sacrifices cleansing rituals in the temple: Huh?

  • Now after many yearsI CAME to bringALMS to my nation, and OFFERINGS.” ACTS 24:17

As we can see from Paul’s own mouth he did not represent YHWH or Jesus!

Now some may say that Paul is saying that he only came to pay taxes and/or to do charity work. That is not true because of the next verse:

  • Whereupon certainJews from Asia found mePURIFIED” in the TEMPLE”, neither with multitude, nor with tumultACTS 24:18

Here we have Paul blaming the Asian Jews for his troubles!

what liars do
Remember it was these Asian Jews that exposed Paul’s treachery to James, the head of the original Disciples.

  •  IF Jesus has freed us from the sacrifice then explain why Paul is doing the Purification ritual in the Temple? Which is also apart of the Mosaic Law!

When referring back to the beginning of this chapter you will see the reason why Paul was doing the purification ritual. It was only to fool the True Disciples into believing and accepting Paul into the ministry.

If Paul really represented God he would have, as he lies about in his gospels, “BOLDLY PROCLAIMED” the Gospel of Jesus Christ had Jesus actually said anything to Paul.

We now know that Jesus said nothing to Paul period. Lastly, Paul is arrested and spends two years in jail. After Paul is released he is a beaten and broken man. Two years of imprisonment builds up a lot of animosity and hatred for the Disciples.

Paul still knows that there is money to be made in what he is teaching and after his release Paul starts once again preaching his poisonous message to the foreign Jews and Gentiles.

Even though Paul will never be accepted by the true Disciples of Jesus, Paul knows that there is still a chance to reap a financial harvest by claiming to be an Apostle of Jesus.

Paul leaves Jerusalem and goes throughout the Gentile countries and converts them to his warped style of Jesus.

Before Paul’s ministry started, the Jewish followers of Jesus were no different from any other Jew.

These new converts of Paul needed an exciting new name.Acts 11:26 lets us know where the term Christian really came from. It was from Paul!

  • And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were calledChristiansfirst in Antioch. ACTS 11:26

The term: Christian came from the Gentile lands of Paul’s travels. Now you officially know the history of the word Christian. You now know more than your own ministers…

The Disciples of Jesus are known abroad in other countries. Paul knows that the information highway is very slow.

No one in the Gentile countries will know that James didn’t trust Paul and that Paul’s true treachery was uncovered in Jerusalem. Paul uses this knowledge to his advantage and preaches throughout the lands.

To the lands that are familiar with James and the other Disciples, Paul secretly uses James as a reference to win over the Jewish and Gentile people in the foreign lands. Let’s read the lies of Paul:

  • And whenJames, Cephas (Peter) and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. GALATIANS 2:9

Wow! This man has no conscience at all! The Galatians did not know that Paul was lying. James never gave Paul the right hand of fellowship.

James never commissioned Paul to teach a doctrine exclusively to the Gentiles communities.

Paul started teaching the pagan Gentiles because the Asian Jews exposed Paul’s false doctrines to the original Disciples and they no longer wanted anything to do with Him!

Paul’s false teaching doctrine became so outrageous that even two of his own followers Silas and Timotheus could no longer accept his lies!

Let’s look at the proof of this point directly from the scriptures:

In the beginning of Acts chapter 18 verses 1 thru 4,

Paul is teaching the Jews and Greeks his warped gospel version in the synagogue along with another Jewish man by the name of Aquila. 

Even though you see the word “Greeks” in the verse it does not necessarily mean the Anglo Pagan Greeks.

Remember the scripture says that Paul was teaching inside of the actual Synagogues every Sabbath. Pagan Greeks were not permitted into the Holy temples.

So this means that Paul was teaching Grecian Jews in the temple and not the Gentiles. (Remember this point).

In verse 4 the scripture lets us know that Paul was not only reasoning and teaching the Jews inside of the temple it says that he was also persuading most of them to his side of thinking. Silas and Timothy come to town and hear what Paul is teaching the Jews and openly opposes Paul’s doctrine:

  • And when they (Timothy/Silas)opposedthemselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the GentilesACTS 18:6

So as you can see this confrontation between Silas and Timothy was the turning point when Paul separates himself from the Jews.

Now something Paul said must have been so outrageous and sinister that even his own followers began to realize just how evil this man was?

Notice Paul says that even Timothy/Silas were guilty of blasphemy?

Now ask yourself:

  • If all of the Jews and even Paul’s own henchmen are disagreeing with his false teachings, what sort of blasphemy could they be guilty of?

You and I know that the only doctrine that one could call blasphemy is speaking against the Most High YHWH and making claims that we are now married to another as Paul taught.

So I guess according to Paul, if you do not believe his word and accept the original gospel of Jesus then you are a blasphemer? Ridiculous!

There were many rumors that Paul was teaching against circumcision and against the Laws of Moses.

Silas is finally able to hear Paul’s satanic gospels first hand and openly rebukes Paul for teaching a false doctrine inside of the synagogues.

Paul is outraged that two of his own converts have opposed him in front of the other Jews.

James wouldn’t accept Paul, the other “true” Disciples wouldn’t accept Paul and now two of his own fellow followers have also rebuked him and his false gospels.

Paul get’s angry and says from “Henceforth” which means:

“FROM THIS POINT ON!”

paul from henceforth lies

 

So from that particular point of time and on, Paul decides to denounce Judaism and the true message of Jesus and invents his own doctrines and teaches the world a false gospel that is backed with torture, greed and rape.

Did Y’hshua Warn Us That “Apostle” Paul Was His Enemy?

Paul is free from the Laws of Moses to become the foremost authority of the satanic pagan inspired gospel of the Gentiles which is known today as: Romanized Christianity. Paul is the enemy and adversary of God.  Never let the sons of Satan lead you astray again.Shalom/Salaam/Selah…

APOSTLE PAUL’S LIES EXPOSED! ( Part 2 )

THE APOSTLE PAUL’S LIES EXPOSED! ( Part 2 )

 

Article from :

http://derrickbowdown2yhwh.blogspot.com/2015/03/part-ii-apostle-pauls-lies-exposed.html

The IMPOSTER/APOSTLE Satan’s ANTI-CHRIST! Paul! part 2

 

“THE FALSE PROPHET COMETH SOON!” Jesus of Nazareth…

IF any of you missed part one of this three part series, click on the link below before reading part 2.

The Disciples laugh at Paul lunapic.jpg

Now In this chapter we will learn more about the deception of Paul. We are about to learn just how far Paul was willing to go to destroy the original message of Jesus and the ministries of His original Disciples.

Before we begin, I must let you know that it is my assertion that there were two men responsible for today’s false version of Christianity. It was Paul and it was the TRUE betrayer of Jesus, Simon Peter, we will learn more about Peter’s heinous true character later.

However, for the sake of the discussion we must speak just a little about Peter’s involvement and false rumors that he spread to the people first, that way we can see why and how the rest was so easy to take place.

So let’s begin:

In the final days of Jesus’ ministry Jesus warns His Disciples of the events that are about to befall the Jews soon after His death.

We all know about Jesus’ warning of wars, rumors of wars,earthquakespestilence and so on.

But what most of my Christians brother and sisters are unaware of is that the Sons of Satan, i.e. The Roman Church and the Christian theologians who learned the lies from them tried to hide from us the fact that Jesus’ greatest warning was that Jerusalem would be destroyed and the Hebrews would be wrongfully accused and persecuted by the rest of the known world for ages to come.

Jesus gives the Disciples the real reason for the upcoming calamity:

The GREATEST LIE EVER TOLD?:

  • For many shall come inmy name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. MATTHEW 24:5

Now I’ve said it before in earlier chapters that I believe the;

“In my name” 
part of the verse is added to change Jesus’ initial meaning of the statement.

Remember earlier in Chapter 16 Peter made the false assumption that Jesus was the Messiah and because of this allegation by Simon Peter, crowds began to gather on the banks to see the new rock star who came to town named Jesus.

Now when Jesus sees the crowds gathering, he became confused by what he was hearing! We could assume that all of sudden someone in the crowd shouted out to Jesus or asked the question about is he the Messiah here to save them from their Greek and Roman Oppressors.

When Jesus heard this heresy, Jesus decided to get to the bottom of this scandal!  Jesus decided to question his own disciples to see if they are at the bottom of these satanic lies.

Jesus asked his disciples WHO do the people think he is?

( MAJOR QUESTION #01🙂

 

  • “If Jesus is actually teaching the people in his sermons that He/Jesus is the prophesied Messiah, WHY WOULD Jesus ask His Disciples, a dumb question such as who do the people thinks he is? Wouldn’t Jesus already know that question? YES HE WOULD!

 

So, this is a question most Christians never want to think about because of the two thousand years the Catholic church has been in total control!

So Now that Jesus hears these ridiculous answers. He turns to see who is responsible for such propaganda and lies. He then asked the  those closest to him, if any of them are responsible for these horrid rumors within the people.

  • But whom say ye (MY DISCIPLES) that I am? And PETER answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the ChristMARK 8:28

( MAJOR QUESTION #02🙂

 

  • “If Jesus is actually teaching HIS OWN DISCIPLES in his sermons that He/Jesus is the prophesied Messiah, WHY WOULDJesus ask any of these men/disciples, a dumb question such as who do the SAYor THINK thinks he is?

 

Wouldn’t Jesus already know that question? Again, YES HE WOULD!

So this should be such an EASY question for the Disciples, yet not one of them says anything out of the ordinary. EXCEPT ONE! Simon Peter!

And PETER answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And HE CHARGED THEM that they should tell “NO MAN” OF HIMMARK 8:28-30

A-HA! The true spreader of these lies has been identified!

Only Simon Peter says that Jesus was the Messiah. 

Did you get that folks?

Based on the context of this chapter, it is clear to see that

Jesus never told anyone that He was the Messiah! So what do you think Jesus’ response was after hearing what Simon just said? Yep, total outrage and rebuke folks!

Jesus quickly rebuked Peter for spreading such lies and heresy to the people! Let’s see Jesus’ correction of Peter below:

  • … andHE CHARGED THEM thatthey/DISCIPLES should tell “NO MAN” OF HIM.MARK 8:28-30
  • ThenCHARGED (HE) His DISCIPLES that they should tell NO MAN that HE was JESUS theMESSIAH.” MATTHEW 16:20

OH MY GOSH FOLKS! Jesus words are the mostdamaging words to ever be heard from the bible!

 

Ignorant theologians do not want you to see past their deception and understand why Jesus is commanding his Disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Messiah.

 

  • IT’S BECAUSE JESUS WAS NOT the MESSIAH folks by his OWNADMISSION!

 

So tell me, IS JESUS a LIAR?

Why would Jesus give such a command folks.. why won’t anyone ever stop and allow that question to marinate in their spirit?

 

  • Jesus gave a COMMANDMENT not tospread this lie. 

 

Notice, you will never find a verse where Jesus said,

 

  • “Hey guys, wait until after I am crucified first, before telling people I was the messiah.”

 

Nope! He said I am giving each of you a directcommandment NEVER to tell any man that I wasJESUS the MESSIAH.

Did you get that?

 

  • Never tell anyone that was the Messiah. –Jesus of Nazareth 

 

That includes writing a New Testament gospel which now disobeys Jesus’ commandment as well folks. Now you know.

So now that the base has been set, we can now focus on the other son of Satan Paul and see Jesus’ prophecy of this false prophet opportunists’ deception.

Let’s go back to Matthew 24…

MATTHEW 24 TRUTH ABOUT JESUS

  • For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. MATTHEW 24:5

From the earlier corrections of Jesus I believe the original verse stated:

 (Edited verse theory)

  • Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come saying, I JESUS WAS THE Christ;and shall deceive many. MATTHEW 24:4, 5

This warning was not initially for the rest of us. This original warning is specifically to Jesus’ Disciples and his Hebrew/Jewish followers at that particular time.

Jesus has already told the Disciples that He was not the Messiah in chapter 16.

Now Jesus is warning the Disciples that after his death others will come upon the scene and start making the claim that He was the messiah.

Jesus warns the Disciples that this false prophet will deceive many people!

  • Then ifany “MAN shall say unto you,(the Disciples) Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christ’s, and false prophets, and shall show GREAT SIGNS and WONDERS insomuch that, if it “WERE” possible, they shall deceive the very “ELECT.

Behold, I have told you beforeMATTHEW 24:23-25

I really don’t think you are grasping what Jesus is saying in these verses.

The false prophet that Jesus is talking about is not a far off 2000- year plus futuristic prophet.

Jesus is telling the Disciples that they will get a chance tomeet this man personally! Yes during their lifetime FOLKS! Not 2000 years later in a futuristic society!

Lastly, Jesus tells the Disciples that this false prophet that they will encounter will have just as much power as they the Disciples have!

The FALSE PROPHET CAN DO MIRACLES TOO!!

He will be possibly be able to heal the sick, possibly raise the dead, and possibly feed many people with a few fish and loaves of bread and other miraculous things.

Jesus warns the Disciples that the false prophet may perform miracles that are even better than theirs!

The miracles will be so spectacular from this man that Jesus says that:

 

  •                               (IF it were possible???

 

The false prophet will almost get away with deceiving the whole Jewish Elect or chosen people!

I love this next part!

To make sure that He has his Disciples FULL attention,

Jesus with a forceful voice screams at the Disciples and says a KEY PHRASE that Every Christian believer should hear:

  • Don’t forget this prophecy! BEHOLD!I havetold you before!” MATTHEW 24:25

 

Jesus Folks DID you get that, Jesus says, I told you this before? So to those who haven’t heard Jesus tell them the Disciples that He is not the Messiah and to never tell anyone that He was the Messiah. Let’s go back to the two verses so that you can see why Jesus said He already told them before:
Jesus says he is not the messiah folks
WHOOP THERE IT IS! Folks, there is not a man alive that can twist Jesus’ words now! Not only in chapter 24 is he warning the Disciples that a FALSE prophet will come and institute a false man-god worship, but this man will claim that Jesus is this MAN-god! Yikes!

Folks it’s been over 2000 years now. Tell me, with what we have read in the book of Revelation and what we all have seen in the Omen and Exorcist movies, which explanation is more credible. That some new guy is going to show up on the scene and make us believe he is Jesus returned?

OR

A new Testament will be written and have us serving a MAN-god and have us worshiping Him instead of the Father of Heaven that Jesus told us desires such praises?

Come on folks, you know the LATTER is what happened and we are too prideful to admit that we have been duped, by Paul, The Roman church and Satan… Let’s move on…

Lastly, after Jesus warns the Jews about this new false gospel of the false prophet and his Pagan nation. Jesus ends the prophecy with the following warning:

  • Wherefore ifthey shall say unto you, Behold, He is in the desert; go not forth: behold, He is in the SECRETchambers; BELIEVE HIM NOT! MATTHEW 24:26

Jesus taught the Disciples the truth! Jesus tells James and the other Disciples that if another man such as Paul, or someone else from Greece or Rome etc. comes along and tells them that God is in Secret places or that Jesus spoke to him in a vision with a different message than He has taught the Disciples, they are NOT to believe this man!

The Disciples are prepared now!

Now enter the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy, Let’s meet the false prophet, the Apostle Paul…

PAUL’S CONVERSION LIE!

Paul wants us to believe that Jesus allegedly called Him to the ministry.

However, when you read and compare the words of Paul against the words of Jesus and the four gospels you will begin to see that Paul’s ministry is very contradictory to that of Jesus and His original Disciples.

So is this story about his conversion just a lie? I believe that it is because of two major contradictory stories written about the alleged visions of Paul.

First let’s look at the events surrounding the initial conversion on the Damascus road.

Now shortly after setting out to continue his evil work in Damascus, Paul is supposed to have “seen Jesus on the way” and accepted Christianity after becoming a legend in his persecution of them. There are many other holes in the story of Paul’s alleged “conversion.”

WHO HEARD THE VOICE?

LUKE SAYS:

  • And the men which journeyed with him (Paul) stood speechless,HEARING VOICE but “SEEING” no man. ACTS 9:7

Luke claims the men were actually able to hear Jesus voice but could not see Jesus. Paul says Luke’s story is totally wrong:

  • And they that were with me “SAW” indeed the “LIGHT,” and were afraid; but theyHEARD NOT thevoice of him that spake to me. ACTS 22:9

Paul gives a sworn testimony that the men saw the lightindeed! Paul says the men never heard Jesus’ voice at all.

These two stories whether they were written by Luke & Paul or later edited by the Catholic Church definitely contradict each other!

So which is it?

Did these men see the light or hear the voice or vice versa?

I don’t believe either story at all.

I believe that this story is added so that you and I will believe the conversion story is true based on the supposed testimony of other witnesses in attendance.

Have you noticed that there are none of these men available to give a testimonial to these events?

Question: In Acts 9:3, Paul claims:

  1. He hadSEEN a LIGHT FROM HEAVEN?
  1. He claim that JesusSPOKE to Him and gave Him aCOMMAND?
  1. Paul claimsOTHERS who SAW THE LIGHT couldCONFIRM THIS?

It seems as though the Old Testament writers were prepared for Paul’s false visions and wrote a prophecy to warn future generations not to listen to false divination and dreams:

  • Woe untofoolish prophets (PAUL)that follow their OWN spirit, and have SEEN NOTHING! They have seen vanity and “LYING” divination saying the LORD saith. EZEKIEL 13:3, 6,
  • The LORD hathNOT SENT THEM: and they have made OTHERS to hope that they wouldCONFIRM the word. EZEKIEL 13:3, 6, 7

WOW, How is it that the same words Paul uses are already spoken against this liar?

As you see just like Jesus warned the Disciples about the false prophet, God also warned the Jews about men such as Paul who claim to see visions.

God says that, Paul “HEARS” nothing from Him or Jesus.

Paul attempted to use the other men to confirm his false words. What is the conclusion? Paul never heard the voice of Jesus on the Damascus Road!

Did Paul Preach with the Disciples after his conversion?

Before we start, let me first show you another ridiculous story Luke and Paul invent concerning an alleged Disciple of Jesus by the name of Ananias.

Now according to Luke’s words in Acts 9:10-17 and Paul’s words in Acts 22:12

Jesus is alleged to have sent this man to heal Paul’s blindness.

Now there is something wrong with this picture, they forgot to delete the following scripture from the bible about the character of Ananias that says:

  • And oneAnanias, a devout man according to the LAW, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there.ACTS 22:12

Now think about something?

Both Luke and Paul claim that Ananias was a very devoutHebrew.

The word devout means:

Dedicateddevoted and committed.

So Ananias was committed to following the Laws of Moses. The very same Laws of Moses that Paul is attempting to destroy! Huh?

Ask yourself this question:

 

  • ·         “If Ananias is so well respected by “ALL” the Jews for committing himself to obeying every inch of the Laws of Moses why would he be sent to a man that doesnot want to obey these laws?

 

As you can see that makes absolutely no sense at all! Let’s continue:

  • …then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. Andstraightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. ACTS 9:19, 20

Luke says that after this Disciple Ananias allegedly healed Paul’s blindness, Paul straightway or immediately started preaching with Ananias and the other Disciples of Jesus’ original ministry that Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God. LIAR!!!!

  • Now if Ananias was such a devout Jew would he preach that we are under “grace” and not the LAW as Paul did?

Of course not!

This is all a ridiculous lie that the Greco-Roman Churches never expected us to notice or think about.

The bible says all the Jews loved the Disciple Ananias. Again, it says “ALL!”

  • Now if Ananias was preaching that Jesus was the Messiah and literal sonof God in the Jewish synagogues: Do you really think “ALL” of the Jews would really be singing Ananias’ praise?

Of course not!

The Jews would have attacked Ananias like they tried to kill the false prophet Paul.

As you can see no Jewish person seemed to have a problem with Ananias preaching the true message of Jesus.

The reason for this was that Jesus’ original message was about the love of YHWH, repentance and turning back to YHWH the only God of heaven.

This proves just how far the New Testament false writers were willing to go to deceive us all! Stop letting the money hungry prosperity preachers and churches think for you!

Give God just a little bit of effort in your studies good grief! Now you know the truth…

So after Paul’s alleged conversion did he immediately preach with Jesus’ disciples?

Well from we have uncovered above, apparently not. However there are more scriptures than those above that prove the Luke and Paul cannot get their stories correct.

Luke tells us in the book of Acts 9 that after Paul’s alleged conversion He immediately joined the original Disciples in Damascus in and out of Damascus and all of Judaea.

Let’s go to the FIRST stories in Acts about this conversion:

  • And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. Andstraightwayhe preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. ACTS 9:19, 20

So according to Luke’s story, Paul doesn’t waste anytime at all and starts preaching side by side with some of Jesus’ Disciples right in Damascus.

We are let to believe that Paul supposedly confounds the Jews in the synagogues and built up such a strong reputation through his bold preaching that confounds the Jews of Damascus.

Now in Acts Luke writes from the view of Paul on the same subject:

  • Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them ofDamascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to theGentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. ACTS 26:19-21

Although Luke is supposedly the writer of Acts, we see that it is PAUL that is speaking to King Agrippa. Paul says that he preached to the people of Damascus and Jerusalem and throughout ALL the coasts of JUDAEA. Now remember all of those places that you’ve just heard about because. Because the TRUTH is about to expose the LIES!!

Paul now admits that he was really lying and he contradictsthe book of Acts altogether!

Yikes! Paul now changes his testimony and says that henever ever preached in those areas at all!Check out his new testimony below!

  • 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;immediatelyconferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which wereapostles/disciples before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto DamascusGALATIANS 1:15-17

LIAR, LIAR, SOUL’S ON FIRE!!!

How-to-identify-a-false-prophet

Paul lets us know the follow truths and contradictions in Galatians 1:15-17:

  1. He didnot straightway preach with the Disciples in Damascus as said in Acts 9:19
  2. He never went toJerusalem or throughout all the coasts of Judaea preaching with any of the Disciples of Jesus’ original ministry like he told king Agrippa in Acts 26:20
  3. Instead he immediately chose not to associate himself with the Disciples and goes immediately to Arabia!Galatians 1:17.

So as you can see there is so much falsehood going on between the writers of Acts and Galatians!

  • Thenafter three years I went up to Jerusalemto see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. ButOTHER of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. GALATIANS 1:18, 19

According to Paul he continues testifying that the stories in the book of Acts are incorrect. Paul says that he did not immediately preach in Jerusalem.

Paul says that he instead went immediately to Arabia and it took him over three years before he decided to go up to Jerusalem.

  • Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God,I LIE NOTGALATIANS 1:18

Paul swears to the Galatians with a solemn oath in front of the eyes of God that this version is the total truth. I guess it took three years to get his lie in order huh?

  • Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria andCilicia; 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.GALATIANS 1:21-23

WOW! So now we see that SOMEONE IS LIEING!

Now Paul himself says that He was lying is his version in Acts! He tells us:

Come on folks!

  • (NOTE): If Paul is admitting that the churches of Jerusalem and Judaea had neverseen his face then why would we believe the words in the book of Acts where Paul is claiming that the not only seen his face but supposedly heard him preach powerful messages of Jesus as the messiah and the son of God?

Now there is so much more that I could show you on this chapter but we have to stop here for a lack of space.

Now let’s recap the top ( SEVEN) things we have learned about Paul’s lies:

1.)   “Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.”

Meaning: Paul was never blind or received His site from Ananias.

2.)   “Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which wereapostles before me.”

Meaning: He never heard the true message that the real Jesus spent three long years teaching the true Disciples.

3.)   “I went into Arabia, and returned again untoDamascus.”

Meaning: Paul didn’t immediately join forces with Jesus’ real Disciples and straightway start teaching the masses that Jesus was the Messiah or the son of God.

4.)   “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to seePeter, and abode with him fifteen days.”

Meaning: Paul visited only the weakest of the Disciples to get a feel of the opposition.

5.)   “But OTHER of the APOSTLES saw I none, saveJames the Lord’s brother.”

Meaning: Paul had to know who the strongest link was,know your enemy!

6.)   “The things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I LIE NOT.”

We all have read where he actually did lie!

7.)   “Was UNKNOWN by face unto the churches ofJUDAEA. “But they had HEARD only.””

The only real truth we can believe.

Now Paul’s give a solemn oath to GOD:

“Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God I do not lie,” which makes his letter a SWORN TESTIMONY! To the story in Acts, this contradiction is major!

If Paul says:

  I never did any of the things that Luke claims, which version of these stories are we supposed to believe?

paul the corrupter of jesus teachings

Can we even remotely claim God had a hand in adding either of these two writings into the bible? No!

This lets us know that SATAN’S hand is involved in the writing of the New Testament Gospels.

Paul himself proudly proclaims that he has no need of learning from any human being, not even from Jesus’ trueDisciples.

Paul’s knowledge is completely independent andcontradictory to that of the original Disciples.

Paul doesn’t want their knowledge and feels that all he needs is his visions:

  • ButI certify you, brethren that the gospelwhich was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. GALATIANS 1:11, 12

If Paul is telling the truth,

  • WHY is his gospel message that He allegedly received from JESUS different from the gospel message that Jesus taught to the original Disciples?

The answer is simple, Jesus and YHWH never spoke to Paul!

Paul is speaking after his own heart and from his father Satan.

Paul was unwilling to receive anything from the true Disciples.

In not wanting to learn the true Gospel of Jesus, Paul wasnever able to use the words of Jesus as proof to substantiate his false doctrine.

How could He? 

He simply didn’t know anything Jesus ever said folks! That is why you can never find Paul giving us any “pearls of wisdom” from the mouth of Jesus!

It is next to impossible to find Paul quoting scriptures that coincide with words that Jesus spoke to the multitudes of believers that followed Him.

When pressed for knowledge concerning the Kingdom of God Paul always refers to his own personal philosophy based upon alleged “visions” he claims to be receiving from the so-called Holy Ghost.  Yeah right!

When Paul’s gospels would contradict those of Jesus’ Disciples on subjects such as the Law, marriage, or sinfulness, Paul could not claim to have first hand knowledge of the teachings of Jesus.

Since everyone knew that Paul never met Jesus, he found it necessary to always resort to extensive philosophicalrhetoric to sidestep their questions. Sort of like our modern day pastors do every time someone with an open-mind decides to ask them a tough biblical question…

Paul then would claim that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were “inspiring” his philosophy. Yes, all ridiculous crap if you ask me!

Through His warped gospels Paul can claim to love God and also continue to do his own will as well. This is the very teaching of all of Christianity to this very day.

We go to church, speak in these satanic babble tongues, we sing songs on Sundays and then go and smokedrink and live ungodly worldly lifestyles on Mondays.

What does God have to say about a Man who attempts to turn evil things into good in the sight of the Lord?

Imposter Paul prophecy

  • Thy tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully. Thou lovest EVIL more than GOOD and “LYING” rather than to speak righteousness. Selah. Thou lovest all devouring words, O thou deceitful tongue. PSALMS 52:2-4

YES Paul admits that he loves Evil more than Good. Paul uses devouring words or fancy speeches with a deceitfultongue trying to persuade the Jews to turn away from their only God and follow another gospel.

This man is a liar!

  • YE have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, every one that doeth (EVIL) IS GOOD in theSIGHT of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, where is the God of judgmentMALACHI 2:17

God is not pleased with false prophets like Paul who tell us that evil things are now very good in God’s sight.

After all has been said in this chapter, there is no one that can say that we were twisting these verses just to prove a point.

We are not taught by our ministers to read the bible as it is literally written. We are taught to read one verse here and one verse there so that it will line up with your minister’s sermon.

Sadly, when you usually read the entire chapter instead of just the one verse your ministers give us, we notice that it really doesn’t line up with his sermons.

Satan and the Greco-Roman Churches want to keep us ignorant to Jesus’ true gospel. If they can keep us entertained, then we will continue to be ignorant andseparated from God.

Paul did what he wanted when He wanted to do it. God’s wrath doesn’t matter to Him because He is ABOVE THE LAW!

Paul claims that he has been singled out from among all of mankind to receive visions denied to all the other Disciples and to have been allowed through this inspiration to gain new converts by all means.”

He also would claim “All things are lawful unto me.”

So as you can see according to Paul what ever He decided to do it was okay and lawful for HIM to do!

This means if Paul decides to lie, steal, cheat, fornicate, or whatever EVIL his mind can conceive it is according to Paul “LAWFUL” under His so-called “Laws of Christ.”

In the last few chapters we have learned so much about the true character of Paul.

For some of you this knowledge may be too much to handle all at one time.

Believe me I do understand what you are going through. I know that after 1020 or 50 years of being in your churches you now find out that most of it was all a lie.

So to you that need a break, go ahead and take some time and meditate and pray. God will comfort your hearts. When you are able to continue just pick up this book along with the bible and resume your studies.

I pray that this chapter has also helped you see the light through the satanic light written in the edited New Testament books. God bless you in your continual spiritual journey. Shalom/Salaam/Selah…

APOSTLE PAUL’S LIES EXPOSED! ( Part 1 )

PART I. APOSTLE PAUL’S LIES EXPOSED!

Article from :

http://derrickbowdown2yhwh.blogspot.com/2015/03/part-i-apostle-pauls-lies-exposed.html

 

The IMPOSTER/APOSTLE Part 1.

  • “I HATE THE LAWS OF MOSES!” Paul of Tarsus…

Paul claims that he was a Pharisee or student of the laws of God. This is a lie based on the many ways Paul manipulated and misquoted Old Testament scriptures to fit his own agenda. A Pharisee was a student of students. 

This means that unlike a normal believer they study the oral and written law to the letter as God originally intended. 

Yes there were bad Pharisees and Sadducees as well but there are good and bad in every aspect of life right? So how can you condemn a whole group of people based on the actions of a few? 

Jesus gave a command to the Jews that they must obey the Pharisees. This means their knowledge of God’s law was beyond measure and correct. Now enter the Apostle Paul…

My Brothers and Sisters it is a fact that Paul was making an “anti-God gospel and used Jesus as his personal scapegoat to avoid following the Laws of Moses.

Paul claimed that he was a zealot for the Mosaic Law but his actions and private letters show us that he was a true wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Remember I told you to use your bibles with this book. Open your bibles with me as we see just how opposed Paul is to obeying God’s law.

We see here that Paul was against the Hebrew God and against His Law:

·         But now we are DELIVERED from the Law?ROMANS 7:6

·         A man is not justified by works of the Law, but by faith in Jesus Christ? GALATIANS2:16

·         For as many as are of the works of the Law areUnder the Curse? GALATIANS 3:10

·         In that He said “A new covenant He had made the first Old. Now that which Decayeth and wasteth Old is ready to Vanish Away.” HEBREWS 8:13

·         BLOTTING OUT” the HANDWRITING” ofORDINANCES that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it OUT OF THE WAY,”nailing it to his cross. COLOSSIANS 2:14 Signed. Satan/Paul

Now I hope you were reading all of these verses in context. If you did you will understand that these are the true opinions of Paul about the laws of Moses. 

The reason Paul didn’t like following the laws of Moses is because they hindered Paul’s satanic lifestyle. 

Being a Roman, Paul was able to see and experience all of the forbidden sexual fruits of his gentile pagan countrymen. The Jewish law says that the Jews are not to learn the ways of the heathen/pagans. (See Jeremiah 10:1). 

Now to the Jews that have never experienced the wonderful sights of Greece, Rome and the other countries it may have been easy to abstain from participation. 

However being raised in the pagan city of Tarsus this pagan temptation of Satan was simply too great and Paul couldn’t resist it. 

In a private letter to one of his Roman friends Paul admits that he knows that he is supposed to follow the Mosaic Law but he is a slave to his sinful desires and sold himself to Satan:

·         For we know that the law is spiritual but “I AM CARNAL!” sold under sin. ROMANS 7:14

Translation:

“Yeah, Yeah, Yeah we know the Laws of God are spiritually what we should follow, but I am a MAN/CARNAL! I have SEXUAL NEEDS!” Paul/Satan…

So as you can see Paul knows the law is spiritual and that he is supposed to follow it totally. Paul then frees himself from condemnation by claiming that it is not his fault because he is only human and that he is a slaveto all of his sins! Wow!

Have you ever heard such nonsense before? Now I’m sure your minister never showed you that satanic character flaw of Paul did he? Let’s continue…

Earlier in chapter 7 Satan, through Paul, attempts to deceive the Jews and convince them to forsake God’s law and follow a new and improved version!

·         Wherefore, my brethren(Jews) ye also are become “DEAD” to the “LAW” by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to “ANOTHER” even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. ROMANS 7:4

Paul literally attempts to persuade the Jews and says:

  • “Don’t worry about obeying God’s lawbecause it is now dead because of Jesus!” We can forget about those laws and forget about God entirely! For in my new gospels we shall forget about God and are married to anothernew man-god and follow a new law which I will now call: the law of Christ?” Purely Satanic!

Listen at Paul’s reasoning why the Jews should nowforget about the law:

  • For when we were in the “flesh” the motions (actions) of sins were which were by the “law” did work in our (sexual) members to bring forth fruit unto death. ROMANS 7:5

So it is this nasty law that is to blame. It is because of those stinky hard to follow laws that exposes our sins to us and brings forth death? Wow!

So what do you think Paul’s answer was to fix these ridiculous laws? Let’s see:

·         But now we are delivered from the “law”, that being “dead” wherein we were held; that we should serve in “NEWNESS” of “spirit” and not in“OLDNESS” of the letter. ROMANS 7:6

Paul’s quick fix is to say that we are now deliveredfrom the law as if the law was purposely enslaving us. That is totally ridiculous!

You and I both know that the laws of God do notenslave us; the laws of God are there for correction and to guide us into righteousness so that we can avoid sin.

Next Paul’s hatred towards the law starts to heighten! In verse 7, Paul blames the wicked laws of Moses forexposing his sins!

·         …I had not known sin, “but” by the “LAW!” For I had not known “LUST” except the law had said, Thou shalt not “COVET!” ROMANS 7:7

Oh my Gosh! Did you understand what this man just said? Paul says that if it hadn’t been for these stupid laws he wouldn’t be convicted of his sins!

Paul says that he would not have known that sexual “LUST” was a sin if it wasn’t for one of those stupid laws that say:

“Thou shalt not covet!”

The Holy law that Paul is referring to is one of the Ten Commandments:

·         Thou shalt not “COVET” thy neighbour’s house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s “WIFE,” or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is thy neighbor’s. EXODUS 20:17

So as you can see, Paul loved having lustful unclean pagan sex. 

This pervert wasn’t going to give up his freaky side just because some old and decrepit laws of Moses said that he should.

Sorry folks that’s just not going to happen! We all know that the word “covet” in the text means to take or desire that which belongs to someone else.

We have just read in Romans 7:7, where Paul openly admits that he was guilty of this very sin.

Now as for Paul’s covetousness, I wonder which man’s wife or maidservant did Paul secretly have sex with?

Well I hope it wasn’t the MANSERVANT that he had sex with! That’s just disgusting! Remember, Paul was the one that admitted that he was covetingsomething, so blame him and not me…

If Paul is guilty of coveting his neighbor’s wife and having sex with her then he is also committingadultery, another sin!

This false prophet thinks he can do whatever he wants in the eyesight of God and get away with it. Paul wasn’t the only false prophet that is guilty of this. The bible warned us about false prophets like Paul:

  • I have seen also in the prophets/Paul of Jerusalem a horrible thing; they commitADULTERY and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, that NONE doth return from his wickedness;
  • …they are all of them unto me as “SODOM,and the inhabitants thereof as “GOMORRAH.”For from the Prophets is “PROFANESS” gone forth into all the landJEREMIAH 23:14, 15

God speaks clearly in the book of Jeremiah about men such as Paul that commit covetousness and adultery and walk in satanic lies.

God says that these men such as Paul give strength to sinners by allowing them to continue their sinful ways.

How does Paul do this you ask? He does this by attempting to eliminate the Laws of Moses which teach us correction and how to abstain from sin.

Yes my Brothers and Sisters, Paul’s sexual desires were the catalyst for his satanic new ministry. Paul had a method to his madness!

His mission was to eliminate the Laws of Moses. Paul figured that if he can end the law then there is no condemnation for his sins. Oops, I mean for “OUR” sins too.

You know I have to include you and I in this too so that we can assist Paul in world domination of the law. Simply put:

·         No Law = No Sin! Or No harm No Foul,
·         Live and let Live? Or Sin and let Sin!
·         Make sinful pagan love, not Laws!
·         What’s done in Jerusalem stays in Jerusalem!Paul/Satan 3:16

Let’s get back to the chapter…

·         But sin, taking occasion by the “COMMANDMENT” wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For “WITHOUT” the “LAW” sin was “DEAD!” ROMANS 7:8

Paul says that it is because of the existence of these nasty commandments that showed all manner of sins that he was guilty of committing.

For if there was NO LAW, then there is NO SIN!Wow!

How can you argue with Paul when he is admitting the truth about his true nature?

Remember, Paul never intended for you to learn these dark evil things about his true character nature because these were private letters Folks! Duh!

Paul is now steaming and starts to reflect on his past sexual exploits and says:

·         For I was “ALIVE WITHOUT THE LAW ONCE!” but when the commandment came, sin revived and “I DIED!” ROMANS 7:9

Poor Paul! He is so sad now and Paul says in retrospect:

·         I used to be alive and fancy free without these stupid Laws of Moses! I had covetousness, adulterous affairs, my group sex, my bi-sexual escapades and pagan sex with farm animals! But once I found outabout the commandments and they exposed what I was doing was wrong. I literally died inside! Paul/Satan 3:16

Now verse seven also proves Paul was not a Pharisee at all! Pay close attention to what Paul just admitted. Paul says:

“For I was “ALIVE WITHOUT THE LAW ONCE!”ROMANS 7:9

Paul says I was “alive” without the law!

Let me say that again for those of you who didn’t catch Paul’s statement.

  • “I was “ALIVE” without the law once.”  

So Paul believes that God’s laws stopped him from being alive.

Can you believe what you have just heard?

  • What kind of man believes God’s laws stops us from being alive?

These are the words of Satan! Paul is a deceiver and a false prophet!

Now you have learned the whole truth! Now you can see for yourself that Paul was never a Pharisee or student of the law.

The Commandments were here long before Paul was born and long before he discovered pagan sex.

So he could only mean that he didn’t know about the Mosaic laws until someone such as Jesus’ true Disciples attempted to teach him about the Laws of Moses.

All Pharisees and Sadducees knew the laws of Moses intensely! Paul, based on his own admission,apparently did not originally know about these laws!

Now compare what Paul is saying in all of the connecting scriptures below.

·         …I had not known sin, “but” by the “LAW!” For I had not known “LUST” except the law had said, Thou shalt not “COVET!” ROMANS 7:7

·         But sin, taking occasion by the “COMMANDMENT” wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For “WITHOUT” the “LAW” sin was “DEAD!” ROMANS 7:8

·         …but when the commandment came sin revived and “I DIED!” ROMANS 7:9

These three verses are so amazing aren’t they? Paul hoped you and I would never hear any of these words. However, we have his personal letters now don’t we, and they are revealing his hidden satanic side to us!

So Paul boasts to us that before he ever learned about these terrible laws,

1.    “Lust” was a very acceptable practice that he enjoyed.

2.    “Without” the law there is  “no sin.”

3.    When he gained knowledge of the commandments then he felt as if he had “died.”

Have you ever heard of such a thing before? I know my pastor never mentioned any of this in our church.

So after he learned about the law, Paul thinks he is now dead.

The law has come only to “killed” Paul’s fun! What a shame!

So when did the commandments “come” to Paul?

As you can see it definitely wasn’t when Paul was an alleged Pharisee! Paul is a liar! Now you know thewhole truth! In the next verses you will see that Paul knew that he was supposed to obey the law but admits that they are unacceptable to him:

·         And the commandment which was ordained toLIFE, I found to be unto death. ROMANS 7:10

TRANSLATION:

  • Even though it is the commandments that give us Eternal life,  I “FIND” them to be too hard and bring me closer to death. This also proves that the original followers of Jesus neverthought they were freed from the law.

They knew that it was the law that gave them eternal life just like Paul also admitted. What does the bible have to say about a man, such as Paul, who openly boasts about the evil desires of his heart?

·         For the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the Lord abhorreth.PSALMS 10:3

Compare the Psalms verse above to Paul’s boasting about his heart’s desire and love for his ownlustfulness and covetousness:

·         …I had not known sin, “but” by the “LAW!” For I had not known “LUST” except the law had said, Thou shalt not “COVET!” ROMANS 7:7

Totally amazing isn’t it? Now you know the truth…

Now listen to more admission of the real truth concerning the Laws of Moses by Paul:
·         Wherefore the “LAW” is HOLY, and thecommandment HOLY, and JUST, and GOOD!ROMANS 7:12

This admission of Paul concerning the law is really self-explanatory don’t you agree?

Next Paul wonders if the laws were given to personally condemn him alone of his sexual desires and all of the things that he loves the most:

·         Was then that which is good (SEXUALLY) made death unto me? God forbid. But “sin,” that it might “APPEAR” sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. ROMANS 7:13

TRANSLATION:

  • Were the Good sexual things that I used to do harmful to me unto death? No, God forbid. It was “sin” or should I say sinful men who didn’t like what I was doing, they did this! They gave me those NASTY commandments to make me look bad so that the things that I do might “APPEAR” exceedingly sinful to others, and to condemn me to death!

As you can see Paul has no morality. Again Paul knows and also admits that he should follow the law. Paul goes on to admit that he will never accept the power of any of these laws!

·         All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 1stCorinthians 6:12  

All things are lawful but all laws aren’t for him. Paul adamantly refuses to worship God the way Jesus told us to which is in spirit and in truth!

You have to admit, this devil Paul is amazing and defiant isn’t he? Listen to Paul twist the truth in this next verse:

·         Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. ROMANS14:5  

Paul tries to convince the people and says:

If you think it is sin in your own mind then it issin, but if you think in your own mind that what you are doing is a good thing, then, “IT IS GOOD!” Signed. Satan/Paul!

As long as you believe a thing to be truth, it is truth! The truth is what you want it to be! So says Paul. Satan may have to watch out because Paul is doing a better job of deceiving the people than he is! Let’s finish up the last of chapter seven…

In verse 15, Paul gives excuses as to why he chooses to sin:

·         For we know that the law is spiritual but “I AM CARNAL!” sold under sin. ROMANS 7:14

PAUL SAYS:

  • “Yes I know that God’s law is holy and the things that I am doing are not allowed. However, I am only a man and I am a slave to my sexual desires!”

Paul refuses to turn to God and change from his wicked ways. The bible speaks about Paul’s unwillingness to repent and turn back to God:

·         The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, (arrogance) will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughtsPSALMS 10:4

So as you can see, even though Paul knew that God’s law was spiritual, he arrogantly says that He is: “carnal” and that he is “sold” under sin. Maybe Paul should say that he:

“Sold” his “soul” to the devil!

Now knowing the law, how does Paul feel after he gives in to his lusts?

·         If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. ROMANS 7:16 Revised Standard

Are you saying then that it is not a sin to give in to your sexual desires Paul?

·         If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Romans 7:16, 17 Living Bible

·         For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.Romans 7:18

TRANSLATION

·         Just in case I do give in and do the things that I shouldn’t its okay and good still! Why is that you ask? Because it is not me Paul that is doing but thedevil took over me and dwells in me! So I still come out smelling like a rose…”Paul/Satan 3:16

Paul wants our pity in the verses above. Paul claims that he is really a good guy and has the desire/will to follow the law, but for whatever reason he just can’t seem to find a way to control his sexual addiction and lustful ways.

What does the bible have to say about Paul’s answers?

·         He hath said in his heart, I shall not be moved: for I shall never be in adversity. His mouth is full ofcursing and deceit and Fraud: under his tongue ismischief and vanityPSALMS 10:6, 7

Wow, who knew all of these things would apply to one of the most quoted false writers of the New Testament gospels? Paul definitely knew that his deceitful words and actions that he taught to the Gentiles were wrong in the eyesight of God.

So what about doing good things that honor God Paul? Which one do you choose to do, good or evil?

·         For the good that I would I do not: but the evilwhich I would not, that I do. Romans 7:19

So as you can see Paul admits that he chooses evil over good. So what does Paul’s leading opponent James have to say about Paul’s choices?

JAMES A REAL DISCIPLE OF JESUS SAYS:
·         Therefore to HIM that knoweth to do (GOOD), and doeth it (NOT), to him it is SINJAMES 4:17

James says that Paul is wrong! James says that if Paul knows that he is doing evil and continues his sexual acts then he is definitely a sinner! Thanks for your help James…

SEXUAL PERVERSION is Paul’s sin of Choice!

·         For I delight in the law of God after the inwardman: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.Romans 7:22. 23

Paul gives a hypocritical speech claiming that He really loves God down inside but another satanic law that controls his members in other words his:“PENIS/GENITALS” is at war with his mind! Amazing isn’t it?

·         Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Romans 7:24

Paul then asks:

 “Who can I use as a scapegoat to free me from the Laws of Moses?” Guess who Icon Paul decided to use?

·         I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the MIND” I myself serve the law of God; but with the FLESH the law of sinRomans 7:25

As you can see Paul then uses Jesus as a scapegoat for His sins. So according to Paul he can have his cake and eat it too.

Paul believes that it’s okay to be a hypocrite and serve the law of God with ONLY his Mind but with his “FLESH/PENIS” he will continue to serve the SEXUAL immoral laws of sin! Wow! This is amazing!

So again, what does the bible have to say about Paul’s openly disobedience to God?

·         Wherefore doth the wicked contemn God? he hath said in his heart, Thou wilt not require it.PSALMS 10:13

So what do you think about Paul now hmm? Paul never believed in following God or following the words of Jesus either. Don’t forget; these letters were not meant to be seen by you, me or any of Paul’s potential converts either.

These are letters that he wrote to his friends where he was venting his mental frustrations!

By keeping up the false appearance of an upstanding Apostle Paul was able to infiltrate the ranks of the true Disciples of Jesus and destroy them with the help of his Greco-Roman slave masters!

Now that you know what to look for in Paul’s writings you will see just how many times this man alone attempted to destroy the Laws of Moses for his own satanic gain.

In the next chapters we will see just how much Paul hated the Disciples of Jesus and how he went above the call of duty to make sure that none of his followers would listen to their original and true gospels of Jesus.

I hope this chapter has helped you to see the spiritual light of God. Shalom/Salaam/Selah…

Refuting KAHBA / MECCAH didnt exist before 400AD.

What prompted me to write this short essay was there are circulating lies concocted by Liar Christians such as Dr Amari Rafat that KAHBA/MECCAH didnt exist before 400AD! This liar even added more lies to his lies that there is no single scholars who recorded that KAHBA existed before 400AD!

This lie was maliciously espoused by some low level internet troll who ignorantly added that Prophet Abraham therefore didnt built the Kahba! How true is that? Well this is simply UNTRUE! Scholars have recorded the existence of Kahba / Mecca even before the Christianity came into existence.

1. Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian,

https://archive.org/stream/religiousceremon00good#page/124/mode/2up

Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian, who wrote works of history in the 1st Century BC. He is known for the monumental universal history Bibliotheca historica. Diodorus is the first known Historian long before the coming of Islam that makes mention of Mecca.
Reverend Charles Augustus Goodrich a Christian, was an American author and Congregational minister comments on Kaaba and Mecca, although, he is not fond of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), but he is sincere in admitting that Ka’bah existed at the time of Patriarchs. He writes:
“Among the variety of fabulous traditions which have been propagated by the followers of Mahomet, concerning the origin of this building, we find it asserted, that its existence is coeval with our parents, and that it was built by Adam, after his expulsion from paradise, from a representation of the celestial temple, which the almighty let down from heaven in curtains of light and placed in Mecca, perpendicular under the original. To this the patriarch was commanded to turn his face when he prayed, and to compass it by way of devotion, as the angels did the heavenly one. After the destruction of this temple by the deluge, it was rebuilt by Abraham and his son Ishmael on the same spot, and after the same model, according to directions, which they received by revelation; and since that time, it has continued to be the object of veneration to Ishmael’s descendants. Whatever discredit we may give to these, and other ravings of the Moslem imposter concerning the Caaba its high antiquity cannot be disputed; and the most probable account is, that it was built and used for religious purposes by some of the early patriarchs; and after the introduction of idols, it came to be appropriated to the reception of the pagan divinities. Diodorus Siculus, in his description of the cost of the Red Sea, mentions this temple as being, in his time, held in great veneration by all Arabians; and Pocoke informs us, that the linen or silken veil, with which it is covered, was first offered by a pious King of the Hamyarites, seven hundred years before the time of Mahomet.”
Mecca , which is pronounced in Arabic As Makkah is the birth place of islamic Prophet Muhammed and also the birth place of Islam preached and propagated by Muhammed and his Followers.
Historical Mention of Mecca come way before islam and Muhammad for example Greek Historian Diodorus Siculus (Διόδωρος Σικελιώτης) mention mecca and the Kaaba as
””And a temple has been set up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians” ,this mention comes around 30 -50 BC (Before Christ) Almost 2000 years ago Greek historians mention Mecca or say Makkah as it is orginally pronounced .
18922474_10211517878094699_2290575455639871246_o
19029508_10211578651573998_294436426792633029_n
============================================================================

2. Ptolemy’s

Ancient Greek Geographer Ptolemy mention and Locate Mecca (Makkah) in his World map in 90 AD , He call Mecca as “Macoraba” in Arabic مكة‎ .maco – raba means House of Rab (Lord) . Islamic scripture Quran Identify Mecca as Makkah and mention the Kaaba as Kaaba , House of Allah ( Rab ) and Bakkah ( as in arabic ”m” and ”b” are interchangeably used )
(Ptolemy’s World Map Mentioning Mecca in Hejaz )
19025014_10211578686094861_9163668457593505288_o
MACORABA
19055600_10211578689574948_7943488290588451407_o
ONLINE SOURCE :
MACORABA (Μακοράβα), an inland city of Arabia Felix, placed by Ptolemy in lat. 73° 20′, long. 22°, universally admitted to be the ancient classical representative of the modern Mekka or Mecca, which Mr. Forster holds to be an idiomatic abbreviation of Machoraba, identical with the Arabic “Mecharab,” “the warlike city,” or “the city of the Harb.” (Geog. of Arabia, vol. i. pp. 265, 266.) A very high antiquity is claimed for this city in the native traditions, but the absence of all authentic notices of it in the ancient geographers must be allowed to disprove its claim to notoriety on account of its sanctity at any very remote period. The territory of Mekka was, according to universal Arabian history or tradition, the central seat of the kingdom of Jorham and the Jorhamites, descendants of the Joktanite patriarch Sherah, the Jerah of the book of Genesis (10.26), who in the earliest times were the sovereigns of Mekka, the guardians of the Kaaba, and the superintendents of the idolatrous sacrifices in the valley of Mina, from whence they derived their classical synonym MINAEI It is quite uncertain when they were superseded by the Ishmaelite Arabs of the family of Kedar, whose descendants, according to immemorial Arabic tradition, settled in the Hedjaz; and one tribe of whom was named Koreish (collegitundique), “quod circa Meccam, congregatidegerent.” (Canus ap. Golium, in voc., cited by Forster, Geog. of Arabia, vol. i. p. 248, n.) This tribe, however, from which Mohammed sprung, had been for centuries the guardians of the Kaaba, and lords of Mekka, prior to his appearance: for if the very plausible etymology and import of the classical name, as above given, be correct, and Beni-Harb was, as Mr. Forster has elaborately proved, a synonym for the sons of Kedar, it will follow that they had succeeded in fixing their name to the capital some time before it appeared in Ptolemy’s list, nor can any traces of a more ancient name be discovered, nor any notices of the ancient city, further than the bare mention of its name by the Alexandrian geographer.
Mekka, sometimes also called Bekka, which words are synonymous, and signify a place of great concourse, is certainly one of the most ancient cities in the world. It is by some thought to be the Mesa of Scripture (Gen. 10.30), a name not unknown to the Arabians, and supposed to be taken from one of Ishmael’s sons” (Gen. 25.15). (Sale’s Koran, Preliminary Discourse, sect. i. p. 4.) Its situation is thus described by Burckhardt:–“The town is situated in a valley, narrow and sandy, the main direction of which is from north to south; but it inclines towards the north-west near the southern extremity of the town. In breadth this valley varies from one hundred to seven hundred paces, the chief part of the city being placed where the valley is most broad. The town itself covers a space of about 1500 paces in length; …. but the whole extent of ground comprehended under the denomination of Mekka” (i. e. including the suburbs) “amounts to 3500 paces. The mountains enclosing this valley (which, before the town was built, the Arabs had named Wady Mekka or Bekka) are from 200 to 500 feet in height, completely barren and destitute of trees….. Most of the town is situated in the valley itself; but there are also parts built on the sides of the mountains, principally of the eastern chain, where the primitive habitations of the Koreysh and the ancient town appear to have been placed.” It is described as a handsome town; with streets broader, and stone houses more lofty, than in other Eastern cities: but since the decline of the pilgrimage “numerous buildings in the outskirts have fallen completely into ruin, and the town itself exhibits in every street houses rapidly decaying.” Its population has declined in proportion. The results of Burckhardt’s inquiries gave “between 25,000 and 30,000 stationary inhabitants for the population of the city and suburbs, besides from 3000 to 4000 Abyssinians and black slaves: its habitations are capable of containing three times this number.” This estimate, however, shows a considerable increase within the last three centuries; for “in the time of Sultan Selym I. (in A. H. 923, i. e. A.D. 1517) a [p. 2.240]census was taken, and the number found to be 12,000 men, women, and children.” In earlier times the population was much more considerable; for “when Abou Dhaker sacked Mekka in A. H. 314 (A.D. 926) 30,000 of the inhabitants were killed by his ferocious soldiers.” Ali Bey’s estimate in A.D. 1807 is much lower than Burckhardt’s in A.D. 1814. Yet the former says “that the population of Mekka diminishes sensibly. This city, which is known to have contained more than 100,000 souls, does not at present shelter more than from 16,000 to 18,000;” and conjectures that “it will be reduced, in the course of a century, to the tenth part of the size it now is.” The celebrated Kaaba demands a cursory notice. It is situated in the midst of a great court, which forms a parallelogram of about 536 feet by 356, surrounded by a double piazza. This sanctuary, called, like that of Jerusalem, El-Haram, is situated near the middle of the city, which is built in a narrow valley, having a considerable slope from north to south. In order to form a level area for the great court of the temple, the ground has evidently been hollowed out, subsequently to the erection of the Kaaba, which is the only ancient edifice in the temple. The building itself (called by the natives Beit-Ullah, the House of God), probably the most ancient sacred building now existing, is a quadrilateral tower, the sides and angles of which are unequal. Its dimensions are 38 feet by 29, and its height 34 feet 4 inches; built of squarehewn but unpolished blocks of quartz, schorl, and mica, brought from the neighbouring mountains. The black stone, the most sacred object of veneration, is built into the angle formed by the NE. and SE. sides, 42 inches above the pavement. It is believed by the Moslems to have been presented to Abraham by the angel Gabriel, and is called “the heavenly stone.” Ali Bey says that “it is a fragment of volcanic basalt, sprinkled throughout its circumference with small, pointed, coloured crystals, and varied with red feldspath upon a dark black ground like coal.” The famous well of Zemzem, in the great mosk, is 56 feet deep to the surface of the water, fed by a copious spring; but its water, says Burckhardt, “however holy, is heavy to the taste, and impedes digestion.” Ali Bey, on the contrary, says that “it is wholesome, though warmer than the air even in that hot climate. The town is further supplied with rain-water preserved in cisterns: but the best water in Mekka is brought by a conduit from the vicinity of Arafat, six or seven hours distant.” (Ali Bey, Travels, vol. ii. pp. 74–114; Burckhardt, Travels in Arabia, pp. 94, &c.)
=========================================================================

3. Meccah on Samaritan Book of the Secret of Moses

In Samaritan literature, the Samaritan Book of the Secrets of Moses (Asatir) claims that Ishmael and his eldest son Nebaioth built the Kaaba as well as the city of Mecca Gaster, Moses (1927). The Asatir: the Samaritan book of Moses. London: The Royal Asiatic Society. pp. 262, 71. Ishmaelites built Mecca (Baka, Bakh)
18920131_10211517849133975_6129579604504546963_n
============================================================================

4. Meccah and Medina On The Bible – Genesis 10:30

Today, very few Muslims and Christians alike are aware of that Mecca – along with Medina – is explicitly mentioned by name in an early rabbinic translation of the Pentateuch. In Genesis 10:30 according to the Masoretic Text we read the following:
“And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest toward Sephar, unto the mountain of the east.” [JPS, 1917]
However, the above passage according to the Judeo-Arabic translation – i.e. process of reading run as in Arabic, but the script is written with Hebrew letters – made by Rabbi Saadia ben Joseph al-Fayyumi (ca. 882-942), also known as Saadia Gaon, reads as:
18953476_10211529448223945_6683727128620218170_o
Translation:
“And their dwelling was from Mecca towards al-Medina, unto the mountain of the East.” [Œuvres complètes de R. Saadia ben Iosef al-Fayyoûmî, ed. by J. Darenbourg, vol. 1 (Paris: E. Leroux, 1893), p. 17.]
Everyone who is familiar with Hebrew will not contradict me in this matter (Mekka was marked with blue color, al-Medina with red color). First of all, Saadia Gaon is one of the most prominent Jewish scholars, and it is said that his translation holds an unchallengeable authority over all other biblical translations, since he was the best especially in scriptural exegesis, Jewish history and Talmudic knowledge in general, and he is responsible for the first and most important Arabic translation of the Torah which became the standard version for all Jews living in Muslim countries. Maimonides himself, a great and respected Rabbi (1135-1204) said:
“were it not for Saadia, the Torah would almost have disappeared from the midst of Israel; for it was he who made manifest what was obscure therein, made strong what had been weakened, and made it known far and wide by word of mouth and in writing.” [H. Malter, Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1921), p. 279.]
Therefore, as you can see, his translation is a primary source when it comes to the accuracy of Old Testament interpretation. As to the mentioning of Mecca and Medina in Genesis, let us recall e.g. the statement of the Rev. Professor William Paul who in his critical interpretation to the Hebrew fragment הַקֶּדֶם הַר [#996] from Genesis 10:30, has wrote: “mountain (mountains) of the East. These are supposed to be those mountains of Arabia running from the neighbourhood of Mecca and Medina to the Persian Gulf.” [Rev. W. Paul, Analysis and critical interpretation of the Hebrew text of the Book of Genesis, (Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons, 1852), p. 100.]
Other scholars also shares a similar view.
This of course explain why rabbi Saadia Gaon has mentioned Mecca and Medina in Genesis 10:30. This is not only his paraphrase concluded from the context as some might think, because if you go to the Hebrew text you will notice there such word as באכה (baka) which was translated as “as thou goest” !
Similarly The Christians Scholars stated :Barnes’ Notes on the Bible while commenting on Genesis 10:30 http://biblehub.com/commentaries/ge…
The situation of Mesha is uncertain. But it is obviously the western boundary of the settlement, and may have been in the neighborhood of Mecca and Medina. Sephar is perhaps the Arabic Zaphari, called by the natives Isfor, a town on the south coast near Mirbat. It seems, however, to be, in the present passage, the “mount of the east” itself, a thuriferous range of hills, adjacent, it may be, to the seaport so-called. Gesenius and others fix upon Mesene, an island at the head of the Persian Gulf, as the Mesha of the text. But this island may have had no existence at the time of the Joctanite settlement. These boundaries include the greater part of the west and south coast of the peninsula, and are therefore sufficient to embrace the provinces of Hejaz (in part), Yemen, and Hadramaut, and afford space for the settlements of the thirteen sons of Joctan. The limits thus marked out determine that all these settlers, Ophir among the rest, were at first to be found in Arabia, how far soever they may have wandered from it afterward.
18922218_10211529522585804_198347222535949728_n
And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Zephar, a mount of the east. Mesha, which is thought to be the Muza of Ptolemy and Pliny, was a famous port in the Red sea, frequented by the merchants of Egypt and Ethiopia, from which the Sappharites lay directly eastward; to whose country they used to go for myrrh and frankincense, and the like, of which Saphar was the metropolis, and which was at the foot of Climax, a range of mountains, which perhaps might be formerly called Saphar, from the city at the bottom of it, the same with Zephar here: by inspecting Ptolemy’s tables (o), the way from one to the other is easily discerned, where you first meet with Muza, a port in the Red sea, then Ocelis, then the mart Arabia, then Cane, and so on to Sapphar or Sapphara; and so Pliny says (p), there is a third port which is called Muza, which the navigation to India does not put into, only the merchants of frankincense and Arabian odours: the towns in the inland are the royal seat Saphar; and another called Sabe; now the sons of Joktan had their habitations all from this part in the west unto Zephar or Saphar eastward, and those were reckoned the genuine Arabs: Hillerus (q) gives a different account of the situation of the children of Joktan, as he thinks, agreeably to these words of Moses; understanding by Kedem, rendered the east, the mountains of Kedem, or the Kedemites, which sprung from Kedem or Kedomah, the youngest son of Ishmael, Genesis 25:15 and Zephar, the seat of the Sepharites, as between Mesha and Kedem; for, says he, Mesha is not Muza, a mart of the Red sea, but Moscha, a famous port of the Indian sea, of which Arrian and Ptolemy make mention; and from hence the dwelling of the Joktanites was extended, in the way you go through the Sepharites to the mountainous places of Kedem or Cadmus: perhaps nearer the truth may be the Arabic paraphrase of Saadiah (r), which is“from Mecca till you come to the city of the eastern mountain, or (as in a manuscript) to the eastern city,”meaning perhaps Medina, situate to the east; so that the sense is, according to this paraphrase, that the sons of Joktan had their dwelling from Mecca to Medina; and so R. Zacuth (s) says, Mesha in the Arabic tongue is called Mecca; and it is a point agreed upon by the Arabs that Mesha was one of the most ancient names of Mecca; they believe that all the mountainous part of the region producing frankincense went in the earliest times by the name of Sephar; from whence Golius concludes this tract to be the Mount Zephar of Moses, a strong presumption of the truth of which is that Dhafar, the same with the modern Arabs as the ancient Saphar, is the name of a town in Shihr, the only province in Arabia bearing frankincense on the coast of the Indian ocean (t).
(o) Geograph. l. 6. c. 7. (p) Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 23. (q) Onomastic. Sacr. p. 116. (r) In Pocock. Specimen Hist. Arab. p. 34. (s) In Juchasin, fol. 135. 2.((t) Universal History, vol. 18. p. 353.

5. Meccah, Pilgrimage in The Bible Exodus 5.1

This verse will puzzled all Christians and Jews, While in Egypt we read that YHWH was instructing Moses to inform Pharoah International Standard Version After Moses and Aaron arrived, they told Pharaoh, “This is what the LORD God of Israel says: ‘Let my people go so they may make a pilgrimage for me in the desert.'”
NET Bible Afterward Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Release my people so that they may hold a pilgrim feast to me in the desert.'”
19055087_10211588704265309_4430028105451854544_o
Its really a mind boggling to learn that Moses and Children of Israel was instructed to make a pilgrimage feast when the Temple of Solomon was not yet been built. Does the command “make a pilgrimage for me in the desert” therefore would make a sense if there is no dedicated temple for the intended purpose? Of course it would make sense only if a Temple exist. But the problem is, the Temple of Solomon was not yet in existence during this period. The Temple Of Solomon came only to existence only after 966 years from the time of Exodus. The command “make a pilgrimage for me in the desert” will make sense only if the PILGRIMAGE FEAST is to be performed at Meccah. Some Bible experts confirmed this facts. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges while commenting on Exodus 5:1
19146116_10211588861629243_4031100584661965951_n
make a pilgrimage] The Heb. ḥag means not simply a religious ‘feast’ like our Easter or Christmas, for instance, but a feast accompanied by a pilgrimage to a sanctuary: such as, for instance, were the three ‘ḥaggim,’ at which every male Israelite was to appear before Jehovah (Exodus 23:14-17). The corresponding word in Arabic, ḥaj, denotes the pilgrimage to Mecca, which every faithful Mohammedan endeavours to make at least once in his life.
19145909_10211588888309910_7042191712488519167_n
Brown digger as well revealed h**p://biblehub.com/hebrew/2287.htm
Brown-Driver-Briggs[חָגַג] verb make pilgrimage, keep a pilgrim-feast (Arabic http://biblehub.com/bdbgif/bdb02900… betake oneself to or towards an object of reverence; make a pilgrimage to Mecaa; Sabean חגג make pilgrimage SabDenkm86. compare 85; Syriac http://biblehub.com/bdbgif/bdb02900… celebrate a feast. In Palmyrene חגגו is proper name VogNo. 61; compare also Phoenician proper name חגי, חגת); —
Qal Perfect2masculine plural חַגֹּתֶם Exodus 12:14 2t.; Imperfect2masculine singular תָּחֹג Exodus 23:14; Deuteronomy 16:15; 3masculine plural יָח֫וֺגּוּ Psalm 107:27 (Bö§ 1118 (2)); וְיָחֹ֫גּוּ Exodus 5:1; 2masculine plural תָּחֹ֫גּוּ Leviticus 23:39,41; suffix תְּחָגֻּ֫הוּ Exodus 12:14; Imperative feminine חָגִּי Nahum 2:1; Infinitive construct חֹג Zechariah 14:18 + 2t., Participle חוֺגֵג Psalm 42:5; plural חֹגְַגִים 1 Samuel 30:16; —
1 keep a pilgrim-feast, absolute Exodus 5:1 (JE) of one proposed by Moses; שׁלשׁ רגלים תחג לי three times shalt thou make pilgrimage unto me (in the year) Exodus 23:14 (covt. code); of pilgrim-feasts in General
Of course Christians will oppose their own scholars when their faith is threaten, some of them will simply tell us that the pilgrimage feast just occured somewhere in Egypt. This can not be because as mentioned earlier, Pilgrimage -feast require a dedicated place, area or temple. Another compelling reason that the pilgrimage must be somewhere out of Egypt was the very purpose of the Pilgrimage itself, Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
wrote: In the wilderness—i.e., beyond the frontier, or, at any rate, beyond inhabited Egypt—that the Egyptians might not be driven to fury by seeing animals sacrificed which they regarded as sacred. (See Exodus 8:26, and the comment ad loc.)
Pulpit Commentary rationalizing the place of pilgrimage The rationale of the demand is given in ch. 8:26. The Israelites could not offer their proper sacrificial animals in the presence of the Egyptians without the risk of provoking a burst of religious animosity, since among the animals would necessarily be some which all, or many, of the Egyptians regarded as sacred, and under no circumstances to be killed. The fanaticism of the Egyptians on such occasions led to wars, tumults, and massacres. (See Plutarch, ‘De Isid. et Osir.,’ § 44.) To avoid this danger the “feast” must be held beyond the bounds of Egypt – in the adjacent “wilderness.”
============================================================================

6. Mecca did exist before the advent of Christianity -Secular historical evidence

Makkah, or Mecca, is the centre of Islamic civilization. Qur’an terms it as Ummul Qura’ i.e. Mother of the Cities (6: 92 & 42: 7). It is the place to which all Muslims turn their faces five times a day and making a pilgrimage to it once in life is not only an obligation but the heartiest desire of every Muslim.Apparently it is only the importance of this city which gives us ‘mecca’ as a word in the English language meaning, ‘a place frequented for special purpose.’
But this is not all; its central position in the House of Islam has lead some jaundiced-eye critics of Islam to even doubt its historicity. They say that history of Arabia has no evidence for the existence of Makkah before the advent of Christianity.
Infact there are references to the city and sanctuary of Makkah even in the Old Testament. But in the following lines I will not bask upon references from the Bible but instead share a secular historical evidence to refute the lie.
Diodorus Siculus, a first century B.C. Greek historian while discussing Arabia writes;
“The people that inhabit these parts are called Bizomenians and live upon wild beasts taken in hunting. Here is a sacred temple in high veneration among all the Arabians.” (The Historical Library of the Diodorus the Sicilian, Translated by G. Booth, Esq., J. Davis Military Chronicle Office, London 1814 vol.1 p.184)
This certainly is a reference to Makkah. Georgi Zaidan (d. 1914 C.E.), a Christian Arab from Beirut writes in his book Al-‘Arab Qabl al-Islam (Arabs before Islam);
19225051_10211594226163353_2196291666098446586_n
“There is no mention of Makkah or Ka’ba in the books of the Greeks of antiquity except what is found in the book of Diodorus Siculus of the first century before Christ in his discussion about the Nabateans. In that he refers to Makkah and he writes, ‘And beyond the land of the Nabateans is the region of Bizomenians. And there is a sacred temple in high veneration among all the Arabs.’”
And he does not just stop here, he even explains as to whom Diodorus refers to by using the word, “Bizomenians.” He writes (Arabic wording is given in the image above);
“As to the ‘Bizomenians’; sometimes by it are intended the Jurhamites or other Arabian tribes who were the custodians of Makkah.” (Al-‘Arab Qabl al-Islam, Al-Hilal publishers Cairo, second ed. vol.1 p.244)
So we find a Christian testifying for and expounding a historical evidence for Makkah from pre-Christian times.
Similarly another Arab Christian, Jesuit Louis Cheikho (d. 1927 C.E.) in his work titled, ‘al-Nasaraniyah wa adaabuha bayn ‘Arab al-Jahaliyyah’ (The Christianity and Its Literature amongst the Arabs of Pre-Islamic Times) also refers to the same quotation from Diodorus Siculus and takes it like Zaidan. (See al-Nasaraniyah wa adaabuha bayn ‘Arab al-Jahaliyya, Darul Mashriq, Beirut second ed. 1989 p.14)
I hope objective readers will find this piece useful.
================================================================

7.  Return to Meccah Book By Judeo Christian Rabbi Avi Lipkin

Another modern Judeo Christians Scholars has clearly mentioned in his Book Return to Meccah, that Moses had been to PILGRIMAGE with Kahba..
 
=======================================================================

Related articles :

Additional reading materials and refutation : https://www.bismikaallahuma.org/his…

The Ka’abah And The Abrahamic Tradition

Original Article from : https://www.bismikaallahuma.org/history/the-kaabah-and-the-abrahamic-tradition/

The Ka’abah And The Abrahamic Tradition

BY MUHAMMAD MOHAR ALI

 

Professor of the History of the Islam, Centre for the Service of Sunnah and Sirah, Islamic University Madina, Saudi Arabia. Excerpts from Sirat Al Nabi and the Orientalists: With Special Reference to the Writings of William Muir, D. S. Margoliouth and W. Montgomery Watt. Compiled by Adam Rodrigues

The story of Prophet Ibrahim’s migration from Babylonia to Syria-Palestine (Kan’an), then to Egypt, then his return to Palestine and subsequently his coming with his wife Hajar and son Isma’il to Makka is well-known. These epoch-making travels took place roughly at the beginning of the second millennium B.C. Ibrahim had at first called his own people to abandon the worship of idols and other objects like the heavenly bodies and to worship the One Only God.1 They, however, instead of responding to his call, put him to various vexations and ultimately to the test of fire from which God protected and saved him.2 Only his wife Sarah and nephew Lot believed and accepted his call. Under God’s directive3 Ibrahim, accompanied by Sarah and Lot first migrated to Haran (in Syria) and then on to Kan’an (Palestine). At both the places he preached God’s message and called the people to worship Him alone. Next he travelled to Egypt where the reigning monarch initially designed evil against him but was subsequently attracted to him and respected him. The ruler presented Hajar to Ibrahim and Sarah. Hajar was originally a princess and queen to another ruler but was captured in a war by the Egyptian monarch.4

With Hajar Ibrahim returned to Palestine and subsequently married her. Ibrahim had hitherto no child. So he prayed to God for a son. God granted his prayer and gave him the good news that a forbearing son would be born to him.5As Hajar became pregnant Sarah grew jealous of her; but God blessed her. According to the Old Testament an angel visited her and gave her the good tidings that she would give birth to the first son to Ibrahim and that she should name the son Isma’il.6

In due course she gave birth to a son, the first-born to Ibrahim, and the child was named Ismail. Ibrahim was at that time 86 years old.

Until Ibrahim’s return from Egypt Lut had all along been with him. Then Lut was called to Prophethood and was directed to preach to the people inhabiting the then prosperous region lying to the southeast of the Dead Sea. The sinful people rejected his repeated appeals to reform themselves and to obey Allah. Ultimately Allah destroyed the intransigent population and their habitat, saving Lut and a few of his believing followers.7 This happened some 12 or 13 years after the birth of Isma’il. The scenes of destruction and devastation are still visible in the region.

After Isma’il’s birth Sarah grew all the more jealous of Hajar so that Ibrahim found it necessary to separate her and the child from near Sarah. Under Allah’s directive and guidance he travelled with Hajar and Isma’il all the way from Palestine to the valley of Makka and left the mother and the child, with some provisions and water, at the spot near which the Ka’ba stands. It was then an uninhabited place. Hajar of course enquired of Ibrahim why he was leaving them there. In reply he said that he was doing so according to Allah’s directive and desire. The virtuous and believing Hajar willingly submitted to Allah’s will, expressing her confidence that Allah would not then let them down.8

Allah of course did not let Hajar and Isma’il down. As the little amount of water with them was soon exhausted Hajar went in search of water. She ran frantically between the nearby Safa and Marwah hills in search of water. As she thus completed seven runs between the two hills, the angel Jibril appeared before her by Allah’s command and caused the well of Zamzam to gush forth from the ground for Hajar and Isma’il. The provision of this well for them was indeed the beginning of their peaceful existence there. For water in those days (as also subsequently) was the most valuable wealth in desert Arabia. Soon a Qahtani tribe of Yaman was passing by the region. Noticing that a bird was flying over the spot of Zamzam they correctly guessed that there was water there. They reached the spot and sought and obtained Hajar’s permission to settle there.9

Thus the spot was settled and it soon grew to be an important trading centre, lying conveniently on the trade route from Yaman to the north and vice-versa. Isma’il grew up among the Jurhum tribe, learning the pure Arabic tongue from them. When grown up he successively married two ladies from the Jurhum tribe, the second wife being the daughter of Mudadd ibn ‘Aim, leader of the Jurhum tribe.

In the meantime Ibrahim continued to visit Makka from time to time to know about the well-being of his son and wife.10 On one such occasion, when Ismail had reached the age of understanding, Ibrahim received Allah’s command in dream to sacrifice his dear and only one son. He disclosed it to Isma’il. The virtuous son of the virtuous father, who himself was to be a Prophet of Allah; Isma’il unhesitatingly consented and asked his father to carry out Allah’s behest. Accordingly Ibrahim took Isma’il to a suitable spot.11 The Qur’an specifically states that both father and son submitted to Allah’s will12 made him lie on the ground, face downward, and was about to strike his neck with knife when Allah’s call reached Ibrahim saying that he had already passed the test and that he should instead sacrifice an animal.13

The test was for both father and son and both had creditably passed it. It was as a reward for having passed this test that Allah further blessed Ibrahim and gave him the good tidings that He would favour him with another son by his first wife Sarah, though both he and she had grown quite old14. Thus another son, Ishaq, was born to Ibrahim by Sarah when Isma’il was about 14 years old. On another occasion when Ibrahim visited Makka Allah bade him build a house for His worship15. Accordingly he built the Ka’ba, assisted by his son Isma’il. As they raised the foundation they prayed to Allah to accept their good deed, to render them submissive to His will, to raise from among their progeny a people submissive to Allah and to raise from among them a Prophet who would purify them and recite unto them His scripture and directives
16. Further they prayed Allah to make Makka and its vicinity a land of peace and security and to feed its people abundantly – “such of them as believe in Allah and the Last Day.” (Qur’an, 2:126).

When the building of the Ka’ba was completed Allah commanded Ibrahim to proclaim to mankind the duty of pilgrimage to the House (Ka’ba)17. So Ibrahim introduced the rite of pilgrimage to the Ka’ba.

The Qur’an as well as the Bible state that Allah especially blessed Ibrahim and both his sons, Isma’il and Ishaq, intimating that their descendants would multiply into nations18. Indeed, it was according to the Divine plan that the two sons were settled in two different lands. Ibrahim lived long to see his sons grow into maturity, establishing their respective families. According to the Old Testament Ibrahim lived for 175 years and when he died both Isma’il and Ishaq together buried him19.

Isma’il also lived long for 137 years and left behind him twelve sons from whom twelve tribes arose20. They and their descendants lived at Makka; but as their numbers increased they scattered over the other parts of Arabia. Of the tribes who arose out of the twelve sons of Ismail, those from the eldest two, Nabat and Qaydar[21] became more prominent. The descendants of Nabat migrated from Makka towards the north where, in the course of time, they founded the famous Nabatian Kingdom (sixth century B.C. to 105 A.C.) with Petra as its capital. The descendants of Qaydar continued to live at Makka and its vicinity for long till the time of ‘Adnan, probably the 38th in descent from Qaydar. The descendants of ‘Adnan through his son Ma’dd and grandson Nizar multiplied so greatly that they were in the course of time divided into numerous tribes and spread over all parts of Arabia including Bahrayn and Iraq. Most of the tribes who subsequently attained prominence traced their descent from ‘Adnan and thus called themselves ‘Adnanites. Such famous tribes as Taghlib, Hanifah, Bakr ibn Wa’il, Qays ibn ‘Aylan, Sulaym, Hawazin, Ghataffan, Tamim, Hudhayl ibn Mudrikab, Asad ibn Khuzaymah, Thaqif, and Quraysh (sons of Fihr ibn Malik ibn al-Nadr ibn Kinanah) all traced their descent from ‘Adnan and through him from Isma’il and Ibrahim.

Indeed, this Abrahamic tradition was the most important and universal feature in the social life of the Arabs. It was the symbol of their unity and identity, despite their division into numerous independent tribes. It found expression in their practical life in various ways. Each and every tribe meticulously maintained their genealogy tracing it ultimately to Isma’il and Ibrahim. They universally practised circumcision as an Abrahamic tradition (Sunnah). All the peoples of all the tribes believed the Ka’ba to have been built by Ibrahim and they considered it as their spiritual centre. They even placed images of Ibrahim and Isma’il along with other images, in the Ka’ba. In pursuance of the Abrahamic tradition all the Arabs used to perform pilgrimage to the Ka’ba and Makka, to make sacrifice of animals in connection with that rite, and to circumambulate the Ka’ba. And despite their relapse into gross idolatry they did not forget the name of Allah, Whom they regarded as the Supreme Lord – a faint remnant of monotheism which Ibrahim and Isma’il had taught. And most important of all, when the Prophet asked them, through the Qur’anic text, to revert to the true faith of their forefather Ibrahim (millata ‘abikum Ibrahim) they did not controvert him on this point of their ancestry going back to Ibrahim, although they were only too ready to oppose the Prophet on all conceivable grounds. This is worth emphasizing; for nothing was more obnoxious to an Arab than to ascribe a false or imaginary ancestry to him.

Regarding The Abrahamic Tradition

(a) Consideration of Muir’s views

Of greater import are the opinions of the orientalists about the Abrahamic tradition. Generally they deny that Prophet Ibrahim(P) ever came to Makka, that Hajar and Isma’il(P) were ever left there by him and that the Ka’ba was built by him. They also assert that it was Ishaq(P) and not Ismail(P), who was intended to be sacrificed. These views are as old as orientalism itself. It was Muir, however, who gave those views their modern form and pattern. And ever since his time others have mainly reproduced his arguments and assumptions.[22] “The connection of the Abraham myth with the Ka’bah”, writes Margoliouth, “appears to have been the result of later speculation, and to have been fully developed only when a political need for it arose.”[23]

Of the others who reiterated and elaborated the same views mentioned may be made of J.D. Bate and Richard Bell. The former prepared an independent monograph entitled Enquiries Into the Claims of Ishmael[24] in which he set forth almost all that the orientalists have to say on the theme including the question of the sacrifice of Isma’il. The latter, Richard Bell, suggested that the relevant Qur’anic passages on the subject are “later” revisions during the Madinite period of the Prophet’s mission[25].

Clearly, the subject calls for a separate treatment. The scope of the present work, however, necessitates confining the present section to a consideration of Muir’s views that are mainly elaborated and reiterated by his successors.

On the basis of the information contained in the Old Testament Muir says: “Hager, when cast forth by Abraham, dwelt with her son in the wilderness of Paran, to the north of Arabia.”[26]. He further says that the “divine promise of temporal prosperity” in favour of Isma’il was fulfilled and his twelve sons became “twelve princes” whose descendants were founders of numerous tribes. These tribes, and also other Abrahamic and collateral tribes lived, according to Muir, in northern Arabia extending “from the northern extremity of the Red Sea towards the mouth of the Euphrates.”[27]

He admits, however, that the Abrahamic tradition and the legend connected with the Ka’ba were widely current and accepted in Arabia and Makka before the rise of Islam[28] but he holds that these traditions, though earlier than Islam, grew there much subsequently to the time of Ibrahim. Muir mentions in this connection that though “a great proportion of the tribes in northern and central Arabia were descended from Abraham, or from collateral stock, we have no materials for tracing their history from the era of that patriarch for nearly two thousand years.”[29]. Therefore he proceeds to “conjecture”[30] the “facts” as follows.

He says that there were earlier settlers at Makka, many of whom were natives of Yaman. They brought with them Sabeanism, stone worship and idolatry. “These became connected with the well of Zamzam, the source of their prosperity; and near to it they erected their fane [the Ka’ba], with its symbolical Sabeanism and mysterious blackstone. Local rites were superadded; but it was Yemen, the cradle of the Arabs, which furnished the normal elements of the system.”[31] Subsequently, an Isma’ilite tribe from the north, “either Nabataean or some collateral stock”, was attracted there by its wells and favourable position for caravan trade. This tribe carried “in its train the patriarchal legend of Abrahamic origin” and engrafted “it upon the local superstitions.” “Hence arose the mongrel worship of the Ka’ba, with its Ishmaelite legends, of which Mahomet took so great advantage.”[32].

In support of this “conjecture” Muir advances a number of other suppositions. He says that though the existence of the Abrahamic tradition was extensive and universal, it is “improbable” that it “should have been handed down from the remote age of the patriarch by an independent train of evidence in any particular tribe, or association of tribes”. According to him, “it is far more likely that it was borrowed from the Jews, and kept alive by occasional communication with them.”[33] Having said so he states that so “extensive a homage,” i.e., homage to the Ka’ba “must have its beginnings in an extremely remote age; and similar antiquity must be ascribed to the essential concomitants of the Meccan worship, – the Kaaba with its blackstone, sacred limits, and the holy months.”[34] He then attempts to prove the great antiquity of the Ka’ba and its rites by mentioning that the Greek historian Herodotus (5th century B.C.) speaks of one of the chief goddesses of the Arabs and mentions her name as Alilat which “is strong evidence of the worship, at that early period, of Allat the Meccan idol.”[35]

Next Muir points out that the Greek author Diodorus Siculus, writing in the first century B.C., spoke of a “temple” in Arabia which was “greatly revered by all the Arabs”. Muir observes that this must refer to the Ka’ba, “for we know of no other which ever commanded the universal homage of Arabia.”[36] Finally, Muir suggests that the practice of idolatry was old and widespread in Arabia and, on the authority of Ibn Hisham (Ibn ‘Ishaq), points out that idolatrous shrines were “scattered from Yemen to Duma [Dumat al-Jandal] and even as far as Hira, some of them subordinate to the Kaaba and having rites resembling those of Mecca.”[37]

On the basis of such facts and arguments Muir states that there “is no trace of anything Abrahamic in the essential elements of the superstition. To kiss the black stone, to make the circuits of the Ka’ba, and perform the other observances at Mecca, Arafat and the vale of Mina, to keep the sacred months, and to hallow the sacred territory, have no conceivable connection with Abraham, or with ideas and principles which his descendants would be likely to inherit from him”[38] These were according to him “either strictly local” or being connected with the system of idolatry prevailing in the south of the peninsula, were imported to Makka by Banu Jurhum and others.

And when the Abrahamic legend was grafted on “the indigenous worship, the rites of sacrifice and other ceremonies were now for the first time introduced, or at any rate first associated with the memory of Abraham”[39] and once the legend was thus established at Makka, its “mercantile eminence” which “attracted the Bedouins of Central Arabia” to it, “by degrees imparted a national character to the local superstition, till at last it became the religion of Arabia.”[40]

Finally, suggests Muir, the Prophet only took his stand on this “common ground”, and effected a bridge between the “gross idolatry of the Arabs and the pure theism of Israel”. “The rites of the Kaaba were retained, but stripped by him of every idolatrous tendency?”[41]

Clearly, this thesis of Muir’s is based on four assumptions, namely, (a) that polytheism and polytheistic practices existed at Makka before the migration of the Isma’ilite tribe there; (b) that the Ka’ba and the rites connected with it are polytheistic and are of south Arabian origin, “having no conceivable connection with Abraham”; (c) that an immigrant Isma’ilite tribe superimposed the Abrahamic legend on those rites and (d) that the combined system was then by degrees adopted by the Arab tribes as the national religion.

The facts and arguments adduced by Muir do not, however, substantiate any of the four above-mentioned elements of the theory. With regard to the first assumption Muir mentions three facts. First, he says that the fifth century B.C. Greek historian Herodotus speaks of an Arabian goddess Alilat. Muir notes that Herodotus does not speak specifically about Makka but maintains that Alilat should be identified with the well-known Makkan (in fact Ta’ifan) goddess Al-Lat. It should be pointed out that Herodotus in fact speaks with reference to north Arabia. Even taking his statement to apply to Arabia in general, and accepting the identification of Alilat with Al-Lat, the evidence would take us back only to the 5th century B.C., that is, by Muir’s own admission, to a period some one thousand and five hundred years subsequent to that of Ibrahim. Muir’s second fact is that the first century B.C. Greek writer Diodorus Siculus speaks of a universally venerated Arabian “temple”.

Muir rightly takes it to refer to the Ka’ba; but this evidence takes us back still less in point of time. i.e., only to the first century B.C. Muir’s third fact is that polytheism and polytheistic shrines were widespread all over Arabia. He cites this fact on the authority of Ibn Hisham (in fact Ibn Ishaq). It should be pointed out that the latter speaks of a state of affairs that prevailed prior to the emergence of the Prophet. Neither Ibn Ishaq nor any other authority implies that the situation obtained from time immemorial.

Thus, none of the facts mentioned by Muir takes us back beyond the fifth century B.C. It cannot be suggested that the supposed migration of the Isma’ilite tribe to Makka took place so late as the fifth century B.C. or even after that; for, Muir himself admits that the descendants of Kedar, son of Ismail, became so widespread in northern and central Arabia that the Jews, i.e., the Old Testament, used to speak of the Arab tribes generally of those regions as Kedarites[42]. According to modern critics, the extant Old Testament was composed not later than the fifth century B.C. As it speaks of a state of affairs already prevailing in northern and central Arabia, which includes Makka, for a long time, and not of a recent dispersion of the Kedarite tribes over those regions, the Isma’ilite tribes must have been settled at Makka long before the fifth century B.C.

Muir’s second assumption that the Ka’ba and its rites are polytheistic, that they are of south Arabian (Yamani) origin and that they have “no conceivable connection with Abraham” is both incorrect and misleading. The Ka’ba and its rites must of course be assigned a very high antiquity, as Muir emphasizes. But that in itself does not prove them to be pre-Abrahamic in point of time, nor that they are south Arabian in origin. Muir does not advance any evidence to show that the Ka’ba is of south Arabian origin. If it was established in imitation of anything like it existing in Yaman, we should have found some trace of that original temple or some mention of it in ancient accounts; and it should have been initially more important and more venerated than its supposed imitation temple at Makka. But the existence of no such old or venerable temple is known, neither in Yaman nor elsewhere in Arabia, from any source, not even from the writings of the ancient Greek authors. To cite the evidence of Diodorus again. He speaks of only one universally venerated “temple” in Arabia, not of anything else like it or superior to it. The existence of a number of idolatrous shrines throughout Arabia before the rise of Islam to which Ibn Ishaq refers and of which Muir speaks, including even the “Yamani Ka’ba” of Abrahah, were all established subsequently to and in imitation of the Makkan Ka’ba, not before it. Muir simply attempts to put the cart before the horse when he draws attention to the existence of these Ka’ba-like idolatrous shrines in order to suggest that the Makkan Ka’ba was originally one such idolatrous establishment. Even then he is forced to admit that many of those idolatrous shrines were subordinate to the Ka’ba “having rites resembling those at Mecca”.

In fact none of those shrines was older than the Ka’ba, nor was any one of them regarded by the Arabs as of similar antiquity and commanding comparable veneration. This fact alone proves that those shrines were established in imitation of the Ka’ba. That they were devoted to idolatrous gods or goddesses was also naturally in imitation of the idolatry which had in the meantime been installed at the Ka’ba, not vice-versa, as Ibn Ishaq and others very distinctly mention. Idolatry had of course been prevalent in many of the surrounding countries since a much earlier period; but to prove that the Ka’ba was originally built as an idolatrous temple requires some more relevant evidence than what Muir has adduced. All that he has mentioned, to repeat, takes us back only to the fifth century B.C. He cannot imply that the Ka’ba was built so late as the 5th century B.C. or around that time.

Muir admits that the Abrahamic tribes of Arabia “originally possessed knowledge of God.” They indeed did; and it has been noted earlier that despite their declension into gross idolatry they had not lost sight of Allah (God) as the Supreme Lord of the universe. And it is remarkable that throughout the ages the Arabs used to call the Ka’ba the “House of Allah” or Bayt Allah. While all the other shrines were each named after some specific god or goddess, such as the shrine of Al-Lat, that of AI-‘Uzza, that of Wadd and so on, the Ka’ba was never called after any such idolatrous deity, not even after the Quraysh’s principal idol Hubal. If the Ka’ba was originally built for any idolatrous deity, the name of that deity would have remained associated with it. It cannot be supposed that the name of that deity was obliterated when the immigrant Ismailites allegedly superimposed the Abrahamic tradition upon the “temple”. If such subsequent superimposition had at all taken place, it is more in accord with reason that the name of that idolatrous deity would have been conjoined with Allah at the time of the supposed integration of the Ka’ba with the Abrahamic tradition.

To prove the supposed idolatrous origin of the Ka’ba Muir states that the “native systems of Arabia were Sabeanism, Idolatry and Stone worship, all connected with the religion of Mecca.”[43] This is a highly misleading statement. The religious systems mentioned were of course prevalent in Arabia at different places and at different times, not equally and everywhere at the same time. Sabeanism with its worship of the heavenly bodies prevailed in south Arabia. Muir does not show how this system was “connected with the religion at Mecca” except saying that as late as the fourth century “sacrifices were offered in Yemen to the sun, moon and stars” and that the “seven circuits of the Kaaba were probably emblematical of the revolutions of the planetary bodies.”[44] It is not understandable how sacrifices offered in Yaman “to the sun, moon and stars” could be connected with the religion at Makka. The Makkan unbelievers did of course offer sacrifices to their idols; but they did never do so by way of worshipping the sun, the moon and the stars! Indeed the practice of sacrificing animals, or even human beings, for gods and goddesses, had been prevalent among many ancient peoples before even Prophet Ibrahim’s(P) intended sacrifice of his son to Allah. But none would therefore suggest that such sacrifices by the other ancient peoples or by Ibrahim were only symbolical of Sabeanism! In fact the term Sabeanism is derived from the Sabaeans who emerged on the scene of history much subsequently to the generally assigned date of the Ka’ba. More specifically, worship of the heavenly bodies was prevalent among the ancient Greeks, among others. In that perspective Sabeanism was only a south Arabian manifestation of Hellenism.

More strange is Muir’s statement that the “seven circuits of the Kaaba were probably emblematical of the revolutions of the planetary bodies”. There is no indication whatsoever that the Sabaeans or other ancient worshippers of the heavenly bodies used to make seven circuits around any object as part of their astral worship. It is also quite unreasonable to suppose that the ancient Makkans or others of the time were aware of “the revolutions of the planetary bodies”. If they had such modern astronomical knowledge, they would not have worshipped the heavenly bodies at all.

With regard to idolatry and stone worship Muir, after referring to what Ibn Ishaq says about the existence of idolatrous shrines in Arabia and how the Isma’ilites, when dispersing from Makka, used to carry with them a stone from the sacred precincts, states that this widespread tendency to stone worship probably “occasioned the superstition of the Kaaba with its black stone, than that it took its rise from that superstition.”[45]

As shown above, the evidence adduced by Muir does in no way show that the idolatrous shrines in Arabia and the attendant worship of stones or stone images came into existence before the erection of the Ka’ba. And Muir is grossly wrong in supposing that the Black Stone at the Ka’ba was symbolical of stone worship. Whatever the origin of the Black Stone and whatever the origin of stone worship in Arabia, the pre-Islamic Arabs, neither of Makka nor of the other places, are never found to have worshipped the Black Stone of the Ka’ba. The kissing of the Black Stone was no worship of the stone itself; it marked only the start of making the circuit around the Ka’ba. This circumambulation was not done for any specific idol in the Ka’ba or around it. It was to all intents and purposes a circumambulation of the House of Allah. And it is only an instance of the peculiar coexistence of the Abrahamic traditions and idolatry which the Makkan religion represented on the eve of the rise of Islam. It should be noted here that it was very much the practice of Ibrahim(P) that in the course of his travels from one land to another he set up, wherever he halted, a stone to mark a place dedicated to the worship of Allah (“an altar unto God” as it is put in the English versions of the Old Testament)[46].

That these places of worship were symbolized by stones erected as pillars is clear from Gen. 28:10, 18-22, which informs us that Jacob [Ya’qub(P)], when he journeyed from Beer-Sheba to Haran, halted at night at a certain place and in the morning took the stone he had used as his pillow and “set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. And he called the name of that place Beth-el.” He further declared: “And this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God’s house.”[47] In fact these stone pillars were in the nature of foundation stones laid at different places where houses for God’s worship were intended to be erected. The Black Stone of the Ka’ba was one such stone with which the patriarch Ibrahim(P) laid the foundation of the House of Allah (Beth-el).[48]

Neither was the Black Stone of the Ka’ba symbolical of stone worship, nor were the Prophets Ibrahim(P), Ishaq(P) and Ya’qub(P), by any stretch of the imagination, stone worshippers on account of their erection of stone pillars as “altars unto God”.

The dogmatic assertion that the rites connected with the Ka’ba “have no conceivable connection with Abraham, or with the ideas and principles which his descendants would be likely to inherit from him”, is a downright misstatement. So far as the Black Stone is concerned, its connection with Ibrahim and with the ideas, practices and principles that his descendants were likely to inherit from him, are indubitably demonstrated by the above-mentioned testimony of the Old Testament. That the institution of sacrifice also is very much in line with the Abrahamic tradition admits of no doubt, the incident of the intended sacrifice of his son being so clearly narrated in both the Old Testament and the Qur’an. In this case too the coexistence of Abrahamic rites with idolatrous practices is noticeable. While the unbelieving Arabs used to sacrifice animals on various idol altars at different places, their sacrificing of animals at Mina at the time of the pilgrimage was only in pursuance of the Abrahamic tradition. It was no sacrificing for any particular idols or their idols in general. Neither any idol nor any altar was there at Mina or ‘Arafat. Indeed the pilgrimage, the staying at Mina, the standing at ‘Arafat and the sacrifices made on the occasion were not done for any idol or idols. These were performed purely in accordance with the Abrahamic tradition. Muir’s remarks about sacrifice are somewhat confusing. In attempting to show the supposed connection of Sabeanism with the Makkan religion he states, as mentioned earlier, that as late as the fourth century A.C. sacrifices were offered in Yaman “to the sun, moon and the stars”. But while suggesting that the Abrahamic tradition was grafted on the supposedly preexisting Ka’ba and its rites by an ‘Isma’ilite tribe he states that “the rites of sacrifice and other ceremonies were now for the first time introduced, or at any rate associated with the memory of Abraham.”[49] This statement of Muir’s constitutes in fact a confession of the weakness of his theory and an admission that the “rites of sacrifice and other ceremonies” were very much connected with the Abrahamic tradition.

Indeed Muir’s third and fourth suggestions, namely, that the Abrahamic tradition was superimposed on the supposedly pre-existent and idolatrous Ka’ba and its rites by an ‘Isma’ilite tribe subsequently settling there, and that this tradition was still more subsequently adopted “by degrees” on the part of the Arab tribes because of the commercial pre-eminence of Makka which attracted them thither, are more illogical and absurd. Both these assumptions run counter to his other statement that so “extensive a homage” to the Ka’ba and its rites “must have its beginnings in an extremely remote age.”21

The Ka’ba and its rites of course go back to a very remote antiquity. And it is also noted that Muir makes a distinction between the prior existence of the Ka’ba and the extensive homage to it on the one hand, and the Abrahamic tradition on the other, which according to him was superimposed on it and its rites. But that does not resolve the inconsistency and difficulty involved in his proposition. If the Arab tribes had since antiquity been paying extensive homage to the Ka’ba and its rites, they would not simply add to these institutions only the name of Ibrahim at a subsequent stage -for that is in essence what Muir suggests – just because an Isma’ilite tribe came to settle at Makka and imposed Ibrahim’s name on the existing institutions. In all likelihood, such an illegitimate attempt on the part of an Isma’ilite tribe would have met with universal resistance, both from the preexisting idolatrous population of Makka as well as from the Arab tribes.

Muir seems to have foreseen the difficulty. Hence he recognizes, on the one hand, the fact that the Arab tribes of northern and central Arabia were by and large of Abrahamic origin so much so that both the Jews and the Old Testament spoke of them as Kedarites (i.e., descendants of Isma’il’s son Kedar or Qaydar) and, on the other, attempts to make room for his theory in the situation by suggesting that it is “improbable” that the memory of the connection with Ibrahim “should have been handed down from the remote age of the patriarch by an independent train of evidence in any particular tribe, or association of tribes”. As noted earlier, he suggests that “it is more likely that it was borrowed from the Jews, and kept alive by occasional communication with them.”22 Now, it is highly unlikely that an acknowledged conservative people like the Semitic Arabs, who of all people were the most attached to their ancient traditions, remembering their individual genealogies going back to a distant past, would have continued to venerate the Ka’ba and its rites as belonging to their common past, and at the same time forgetting the real fact of their descent from Ibrahim.

The nature of “living tradition” is not that it should have been handed down “by an independent train of evidence in any particular tribe, or association of tribes.” It is handed down from generation to generation by “popular memory”, not by the memory or evidence of any particular individual or tribe. It is also just not correct to say, as Muir does, that the Arab tribes having supposedly forgotten their descent from Ibrahim “borrowed” the memory “from the Jews” and it was “kept alive by occasional communication with them.” No people who had forgotten their common ancestor would accept the ancestor of another people as their ancestor too because the latter stated so, without further and an “independent train of evidence.” The fact is that the Arab tribes of central and northern Arabia were not merely on “occasional communication” with the Jews. Throughout the ages till almost the beginning of the Christian era the Jews and the Kedarite tribes of northern and central Arabia were on constant contact with one another and they very much constantly remembered their common descent from Ibrahim. But leaving aside all these questions and going with Muir all the way, it is only reasonable to suppose that if the Jews at any point of time reminded the Arab tribes of their descent from their common patriarch Ibrahim, they would also have been told that that patriarch was no polytheist and that the (supposedly) pre-existing Ka’ba and its rites had no connection with him. Therefore the Arab tribes would not associate the Ka’ba and its rites with the memory of Ibrahim even when they were reminded of their actual ancestor. But, since the Arab tribes, by Muir’s admission and by all the available evidence did in fact associate the Ka’ba and its rites with Ibrahim for long before the coming of Islam, a natural corollary of Muir’s suggestion is that the Jews, when reminding them of Ibrahim, must also have told them that the Ka’ba and its rites were of Abrahamic origin.

The unreasonableness of Muir’s proposition does not end here. He says that the Isma’ilite tribe, when it came to settle at Makka, brought “in its train the patriarchal legend of Abrahamic origin” and engrafted “it on the local superstitions.” Thus by Muir’s own statement, when the Isma’ilite tribe came to Makka, they had not forgotten their Abrahamic origin. It is therefore reasonable to add that they had also not lost sight of the fact that Ibrahim was no polytheist. Hence they would not have desecrated the sacred memory of their ancestor by associating it with the (supposedly) pre-existing and polytheistic Ka’ba and its rites, the more so because these institutions had long been commanding the homage of the Arabs. In such a state, if they intended to integrate themselves with the Arab tribes, or vice versa, they would have simply allowed the Abrahamic memory to remain in the background and would have accepted the Ka’ba and its rites as they were; for by so doing they would not have lost anything, neither their domicile nor the profitable trade of Makka. Since they did not do so, but accepted, as it is said, the Ka’ba and its rites as of Abrahamic origin, notwithstanding their having retained the memory of their descent from Ibrahim, and since also the Arab tribes accepted the Ka’ba and its rites as of Abrahamic origin, notwithstanding their constant touch with the collateral branch of Ibrahim’s descendents, the Jews, the natural conclusion is that they did so because they knew that the Ka’ba and its rites were of Abrahamic origin. Thus a rational analysis of even Muir’s theory of subsequent migration to and settlement at Makka by an Isma’ilite tribe, together with the other assumptions he makes and the facts he admits, leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the Ka’ba and its rites were of Abrahamic origin.

(b) About the Old Testament evidence

Muir’s above discussed theory and assumptions proceed from his understanding of the information contained in Gen. 21:21. He says: “Hagar, when cast forth by Abraham, dwelt with her son in the wilderness of Paran, to the north of Arabia.”23 The above mentioned passage of the Genesis simply says that Ismail and his mother “dwelt in the wilderness of Paran”. The clause, “to the north of Arabia”, is Muir’s own statement based understandably on the identification of Paran made by other Christian writers and exegetes of the Bible. Paran is mentioned in connection with other events at three other places in the Old Testament.24 But in none of all these places it is clear what exactly is the locality meant by the name Paran. The answer to the question where, according to Genesis 21:21, Hajar and Isma’il settled thus depends on a correct identification of Paran.

The subject was in fact exhaustively dealt with by Syed Ahmed Khan Bahadur shortly after the appearance of Muir’s work25. As the arguments on either side have not advanced much since that time, it would be worthwhile to recapitulate the main points made by him, adding to them such other facts or points as bear on the subject. He drew attention to the fact that the early Muslim geographers speak of three different places bearing the same name of Paran, namely, first, the wilderness where Makka now stands, together with the mountainous region adjacent to it; secondly, those mountains and a village that are situated in Eastern Egypt or Arabia Petra and; thirdly, a district in Samarkand.26 He further pointed out that the Christian scholars and exegetes advance three different identifications of Paran. One view is that it comprised a vast area extending ‘from the northern boundary of Beer-Sheba as far as Mount Sinai’; the second view is that it was identical with Beersheba, which was also called Kadesh; and the third view is that it was the wilderness lying on the “western slopes of Mount Sinai.27

As regards these identifications the first two are obviously wrong, because the descriptions of the Old Testament itself clearly show Paran to be a distinct and different area, not a vast wilderness including many others such as the first identification would suggest, and also different from Beer-Sheba/Kadesh.28 The third identification, that of Paran being a locality on the western slopes of Mount Sinai, tallies with one of the Paran mentioned by the Muslim geographers, but the locality was in all likelihood not known by the name of Paran at that time. For Moses, in the course of his journey with the Israelites from Egypt to Sinai, does not make any mention of Paran although he passed through the same locality and mentioned the places on the way. Most probably the place came to be known as Paran at a period subsequent to that of Moses on account of the settlement there of a branch of Banu Pharan, a Qahtanite tribe.29

None of these three localities, however, could have been the domicile of Hajar and Isma’il. For, in the first place, no local traditions exist to the effect that they settled in any of those localities. Secondly, though Moses and his followers are stated to have proceeded further from Sinai and having passed through “Taberah”, “Kibrothhattaavah” and “Hazeroth” next halted at the wilderness of Paran30 the exact course taken by them is not clear. The Christian scholars themselves suggest as many as five different directions. Moreover, their statement that the descendants of Isma’il spread over the area “from ‘Shur to Havilah’, or across the Arabian peninsula, from the borders of Egypt to the mouths of the Euphrates” is based on an incorrect identification of “Havilah” mentioned in Gen. 25:18. They, guessing on a slender similarity in sound, identify Havilah with Aval or Auwal of the Bahrayn islands. In reality, as Syed Ahmed points out, Havilah is a locality in the vicinity of Yaman, lying at Lat. 17 degrees 30′ N and Long. 42 degrees 36, E, and called after Havilah, one of the sons of Joktan (Qahtan)31. It is thus evident “that the Ishmaelites settled in the wide tract of land extending from the northern frontiers of Yemen to the southern borders of Syria. This place now bears the name of Hedjaz, and it is identical with Paran”, as mentioned by the Muslim geographers.32 It is further noteworthy that an Arabic version of the Samaritan Pentateuch edited by R. Kuenen and published at Lugduni Batavorum, 1851, says in a note that Pharan and Hejaz are one and the same place.33

Thirdly, a close look at Gen. 21:14-15 would make it clear that the two consecutive passages do not really speak of one and the same occasion. The statement in Gen. 21:14 that Hajar “wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba” does not mean that she wandered only there and proceeded no farther. Nor does the statement in Gen. 21:15, “And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs”, mean that the incident took place in or in the vicinity of Beer-Sheba. Nor does it mean that the same water in the bottle with which she had left her home “was spent” and therefore she was obliged to “cast the child under one of the shrubs”. Beersheba was a place well known to her, Ibrahim having lived there with her for long. There were also a number of wells scattered over the region and dug by different persons, as the Old Testament very clearly states at a number of places. The well at Beer-Sheba itself was dug by Ibrahim. All these could not have been unknown to Hajar. She could therefore have obtained further water, after a little search, from any of the many wells in the area.

In fact the Old Testament writer here describes, in two very short and consecutive passages, the long and arduous wanderings made by Hajar, of which the beginning was her wanderings in Beer-Sheba and the last stage was at such a place where she could get no water, nor replenish her bottle in any way. So in utter distress and despair she cast the child under one of the shrubs. The two passages speak of two different stages of her wanderings, separated by not too small gaps of time and place.

Fourthly, the causes and circumstances that led to Hajar’s and Isma’il’s banishment from home, as described in the Old Testament, also indicate that they travelled to a land quite away from the area where Sarah and Ibrahim continued to live. According to the Genesis, Sarah wanted that Isma’il should not be heir with her son Ishaq. So also, according to the Genesis, it was God’s plan that Ismail and his descendants should settle in and populate another land. The Genesis very graphically describes the situation thus:

“11. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his son.”

“12. And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of the bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.”

“13. And also the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.”

“14. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar…”, etc. (Gen. 21:11-14)

Thus it is very clear from the Genesis that it was not really because of Sarah’s desire but decisively because of God’s plan and assurance of a fruitful future for Isma’il communicated to Ibrahim, and His command to him, that he banished Hajar and Ismail to a different land. God’s words to Ibrahim, “for in Isaac shall thy seed be called”, was a consolation as well as an assurance that the banishment of Ismail did not mean an end to, or a constriction of the line of Ibrahim’s descendants. The statement, “in Isaac shall thy seed be called” meant that Ibrahim’s progeny will continue there where he was at that time, through Ishaq; whereas the other statement was an emphasis on the fact that Isma’il was his seed (“he is thy seed”) but his progeny will be multiplied and made into a nation in another region. By the very nature of this plan of God’s (and Sarah’s desire to exclude Isma’il from his father’s immediate possessions was itself part of God’s plan), Hajar and Ismail could not have been settled in any place in the region of Beer-Sheba and Sinai, which were very much then within the sphere of Ibrahim’s and Sarah’s activities. Hajar and Isma’il could only have been, and were indeed consigned to a far-away and unsettled land. The Paran/Faran mentioned in the Genesis as their domicile could not simply have been any Paran in and around Beer-Sheba and Sinai, as the Christian scholars imagine.

Fifthly, as regards the exact location of Hajar’s and Isma’il’s domicile Genesis 21 also furnishes a clue. Thus, when Hajar in her utter distress and helplessness prayed unto God and also the child Ismail cried out of hunger and thirst, God responded to them. Says the Genesis:

(Gen. 21:17-19)

17. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the Angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.”

“18. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.”

“19. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.”

Thus God provided Hajar and Isma’il with a well of water; on the spot where they were (“God has heard the voice of the lad where he is.”) Hajar did not have to look around and walk any distance to find the well. “God opened her eyes”, i.e., God made her open her eyes (Obviously Hajar was deeply absorbed in prayer with her eyes closed), “and she saw a well of water.” It was not simply a temporary relief. It was God’s especial gift for them to be the means of their sustenance and settlement there in accordance with His plan and promise to “make a nation” out of Isma’il. This divinely provided well cannot be identified with any well in Beer-Sheba and its surrounding region for the simple reason that none of these wells is mentioned in the Old Testament as God-given. On the contrary they are very distinctly described as the work of human hand. Nor is there any local tradition pointing to the existence there, now or in the past, of any divinely caused well. To attempt to identify the well given by God to Isma’il and Hajar with any of the wells in the Beer-Sheba region would be an affront to the clear wording and purport of the text of the Genesis. This well is unmistakably the Zamzam well by the side of the Ka’ba. Ever since the time of Hajar and Isma’il it has continued to be a perennial source of water for the descendants of Isma’il and others who repair there, except for a short period of human tampering with it.

Last but not least, the name of Makka, which is also called Bakka in the Qur’an (Q. 3:96), finds mention in the Psalm of David, together with the well too. Thus Psalm 84:6 says:

“Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.”

‘Baca’ in the above passage is clearly Bakka of the Qur’an, and the well spoken of is the well of Zamzam. It is also noteworthy that ancient works on history and geography make mention of floods being caused at Makka by occasional heavy rains, a feature not quite unknown even in modem times -thus completing the identification with Makka – “the rain also filleth the pools.”

Thus, despite some obvious discrepancies in the description of the Genesis, it is in consonance with all the essential features in the Qur’anic and Islamic accounts; and they combined prove that Hajar and Isma’il were settled at Makka, according to the Divine plan and provision.

[21] Kedar of the Old Testament.

[22] See for instance, A. Guillaume, Islam, London, 1964, pp. 61-62; P. Lammens, L’Islam, Croyance et Institutions, Beirut, 1926, pp. 28, 33

[23] D.S. Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, 3rd ed. (London, 1905), p. 104. This specific comment has been discussed at a subsequent stage in this work, infra, Ch. XIV, see I & II

[24] First published, London, 1926; republished in 1984

[25] R. Bell, The Sacrifice of Ishmael, T.G.U.O.S., Vol. X, pp. 29-31; and The Origin of the Id al-Adha, M. W. (1933), pp. 117-120

[26] W. Muir, The Life of Mahomet, 1st edn, Vol. 1., London, 1858, p. cxi, citing Gen. XXI: 25; XXV: 18

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid., pp. cxv; cxxv

[29] Ibid., p. cxvi

[30] Muir specifically uses this term twice, once at p. cxxv and again at p. cxxvi. He also designates his account as the “supposed history of the rise of Mecca and its religion”. See side-note on p. ccxiv of the first edition and p. civ of the third revised edition by T.H. Weir, London, 1923

[31] Ibid., 1st edn., p. ccxv

[32] Ibid., pp. cxxv-cxxvi

[33] Ibid., p. cxv. See also pp. cxxiv-cxxv

[34] Ibid., p. ccxii

[35] Ibid., p. ccx

[36] Ibid., p. ccxi

[37] Ibid., p. ccxiii

[38] Ibid., p. ccx

[39] Ibid., p. ccxvi

[40] Ibid., p. ccxv

[41] Ibid., ccxviii

[42] Ibid. See also Isaiah 21:16-17

[43] Muir, Op. Cit., p. ccxii

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid., pp. ccxiii-ccxiv

[46] Gen. 12:6-8; 13:4; 13:18. See also Gen. 25:25 which speaks of Ishaq’s similarly setting up an ‘altar unto God’.

[47] Gen. 28:10, 18-19

[48] See Muhammad Sulayman Mansurpuri, Rahmatullil-‘Alamin, (Urdu text), Delhi, 1980

[49] Muir, Op. Cit., p. ccxvi. See also supra, p. 72

Footnotes

  1. Qur’an, 6:74, 80-83; 19:41-50; 21:51-71; 26:70-82; 29:16-18, 24-25; 37:83-98 []
  2. Qur’an, 21:68-70 []
  3. Qur’an, 21:71 []
  4. Ibn Khaldun, Tarikh, II/I / 79; Ibn Sa’d, I, 48, 49 []
  5. Qur’an, 37:99-100 []
  6. Genesis 16:7-11 []
  7. Qur’an, 6:86:7:80-84; 11:77-83; 15:57-77; 21:74-75; 26:160-175; 27:54-58; 29:26, 28-35; 37:133-138; 51:31-37; 54:34-39; 66:10 []
  8. Bukhari, no. 3364 []
  9. Bukhari, no. 3365 []
  10. Ibid. []
  11. Some reports say it to be at Mina; some others think it to be near the Marwah hill.
    []
  12. Qur’an, 37:103 []
  13. Qur’an, 37:102-107 []
  14. Q.37:112-113 []
  15. Bukhari, no. 3365 []
  16. Qur’an, 2:127-129 []
  17. Qur’an, 22:27 []
  18. Genesis 12:2; 16:10 []
  19. Genesis 25:7-9 []
  20. The Old Testament, after mentioning the names of the twelve sons of Ismail, states:“These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.” (Genesis 25:16) []
  21. Muir, Op. Cit., p. ccxii []
  22. See supra, p. 71 []
  23. Muir, Op. Cit., p.cxi. Muir mistakenly cites in his footnote Gen. 21:25. It ought to be Gen. 21:21 []
  24. See Gen. 14:6; Num. 10:12; Num. 12:16 []
  25. Syed Ahmed Khan Bahadur, Essay on the Historical Geography of Arabia (London, Trubner & Co., 1869) []
  26. Ibid., p. 74. See also Yaqu, Mu’jam al-Buldan, under Faran []
  27. Syed Ahmed, op. cit., p.76, citing Kitto’s Cyclopedia of the Bible and The Peoples’ Bible Dictionary []
  28. Syed Ahmed, op. cit., pp. 77-79. See also Gen. 14:5-7; Deut. 33:2; Hab. 3:3; Num. 10:12; 13:1-3, 6 []
  29. Syed Ahmad, Op. Cit., p. 85 []
  30. See Exod. 15:32; 17:8; 18:5; 19:2 and Num. 10:12; 11:34; 12:16; 13:26 and 14:25 []
  31. Syed Ahmad, Op. Cit., p. 80. See also Gen. 10:29 []
  32. Syed Ahmad, Op. Cit., p. 80 []
  33. Ibid., pp. 75-76 []

TRINITY TOOLKIT

The Trinity Tool Kit.

Trinity combat kit 4

 

In a previous article we looked at ways in which the Bible disproves the Trinity. This article is going to cover the most common verses that Trinitarians use to support their belief of Jesus being divine. Each claim is followed by one or more refutations. Please note that this article will be continuously updated insha’Allah (God Willing) with new refutations as I come across them.

This is the methodology that I recommend to follow: Trinitarians tend to use unclear verses which can be interpreted in multiple ways in order to try and prove the divinity of Jesus. But as you will see from the list below, such verses often have multiple other plausible interpretations which do not necessitate the divinity of Jesus. Therefore in order to correctly understand the Bible, we need to rely on the clear parts of Scripture to explain any unclear parts of Scripture, otherwise people can play games with the unclear verses and can interpret the Bible to mean anything they want.

When it comes to the question of the nature of Jesus, what we find is that the Bible contains an overwhelming number of very clear verses about Jesus being distinct from God. These verses oppose those ambiguous ones that Trinitarians put forward as evidence of his divinity. But for a book to be considered God’s Word it cannot contain any contradictions, because God is perfect, and so it logically follows that His revelation must also be perfect. Therefore the Trinitarian is compelled to interpret the comparatively few ambiguous verses in light of the many clear verses, and they do reconcile as we will see. Put simply, the golden rule is that we must use clear verses to explain any unclear verses. Trinitarians cannot reject this methodology as any other alternative creates conflict within the Bible which leads to the conclusion that the Bible contains contradictions and is therefore not the pure word of God.

Please note that you can click on the list of claims below to go straight to the verse in question:

1. In the beginning was the Word [John 1:1]

2. There are three that bear record in heaven… [1 John 5:7]

3. Jesus is the begotten Son of God [John 3:16]

4. I and my father are one [John 10:30]

5. Jesus has the Father in him [John 14:11]

6. The I AM saying of Jesus

7. Jesus’ existence predates his birth on earth [John 8:58] [John 17:5]

8. Some Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he claimed divinity [John 5:18] [John 10:33]

9. Jesus accepted worship as God [Matthew 28:17]

10. Jesus had authority to forgive sins, so he must be God [Mark 2:7]

11. The miracles of Jesus prove he was divine

12. Thomas says to Jesus “my Lord and my God” [John 20:28]

13. Jesus was omnipresent, so he must be God [Matthew 18:20]

14. I am the Alpha and the Omega [Revelation 22:13]

15. The Philippians hymn [Philippians 2:6-9]

16. Jesus is the image of God [Colossians 1:15-20]

17. Baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19]

18. A child will be born and he will be called Mighty God [Isaiah 9:6] [Matthew 1:23]

19. Fullness of Deity dwells in Jesus [Colossians 2:9]

20. Jesus is God over all [Romans 9:5]

21. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. [Hebrews 13:8]

22. Jesus is Lord [Romans 10:9]

23. One like a son of man [Daniel 7:13-14]

24. The Holy Spirit is equated with God [Acts 5:3–5]


Here is a list of all the changes that have been made to this article:

01/11/2016:

– Added a new entry:

24. The Holy Spirit is equated with God [Acts 5:3–5]

04/04/2015:

– Fixed a mistake in this entry:

18. A child will be born and he will be called God [Isaiah 9:6] [Matthew 1:23]

12/04/2015:

– Added a new entry:

23. One like a son of man [Daniel 7:13-14]


 1. In the beginning was the Word [John 1:1].

Perhaps the most commonly quoted verse that Trinitarians use in support of the divinity of Jesus is the famous prologue of John:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. [John 1:1]

This is the perfect verse to demonstrate the methodology that this article is promoting. In the ancient Greek manuscripts from which the New Testament originates, there is no differentiation between capital and small letters. Without delving too much into the complexities of Greek grammar, the statement “was God” lacks a definite particle and therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, this verse could be translated as either “The Word was a god” or “The Word was God”, depending on the beliefs of the reader.

Now obviously we shouldn’t interpret books according to our own beliefs, but rather according to the intent of the author. When faced with ambiguity we have to look to other verses in order to arrive at the correct interpretation. We can see this ambiguity demonstrated in other parts of the New Testament, where we find that the exact same Greek word that was used in John 1:1 to refer to Jesus as being “a god” or “the god” (‘theos’) is also used to refer to Satan, Paul and King Herod:

“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel…” [2 Corinthians 4:4]

“The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.” [Act 28:6]

On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22 They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” [Acts 12:21-22]

Obviously the intention is not that Satan, Paul and King Herod are literal gods in the sense that Trinitarians take Jesus as a literal god. Now coming back to John 1:1, what we’ve learnt is that its interpretation, which in and of itself is ambiguous, should be understood in light of other clear, unambiguous verses written by John. The clear verses will help us to understand any unclear ones. So let’s look at other clear verses in John which discuss the relation between Jesus and God:

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. [John 17:3]

How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God… [John 5:44-45]

Now we have the tools to correctly interpret John 1:1. John may be trying to say that Jesus is divine, in some sense, but he most certainly is NOT saying that Jesus is literally God, because this would contradict the verse above where John says that there is only one true God who is distinct from Jesus, the one whom He has sent. If Trinitarians still insist that John 1:1 implies Jesus is literally God, then they are conceding that John’s writings contain contradictions!

2. There are three that bear record in heaven… [1 John 5:7]

The following verse, which can be found in some versions of the Bible (such as the King James Version) does come very close to the doctrine of the Trinity. This verse is known as the “Johannine Comma”:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” [1 John 5:7]

This verse used to be in all Bibles; however the editors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and New International Version (NIV) have removed the verse (please click on picture to enlarge):

johanine comma

Notice how verse 7 in the RSV is different to verse 7 in the KJV. The RSV does not contain the mention of the Trinity. Also notice that verse 7 in the NIV is different to not only the KJV but also the RSV. The NIV also does not contain the mention of the Trinity. The RSV and NIV have had to split other verses into two parts in order to make up for the deletion of the Johannine Comma, this is so that the verse numbers across all three versions of the Bible line up the same.

The King James Version (KJV) has grave defects, and so these newer versions of the Bible (which are based on older and hence more reliable manuscripts) were produced. Here is the NIV footnote regarding this verse:

Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. {8} And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

In other words, it is a fabricated verse that was inserted into the New Testament over 1,500 years after Jesus. Trinitarians should reflect on this question: why is the only clear Scriptural evidence for their beliefs a fabrication? Clearly, it had to be forced into the Bible to lend support for the doctrine because it is unbiblical.

3. Jesus is the begotten Son of God [John 3:16]

This is the most popular verse used to try and prove that Jesus is the literal Son of God:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” [John 3:16]

Among Christians there have been disputes about the meaning and usage of the Greek word ‘monogenes’, which is translated as “only begotten” in the King James Version. The NIV Bible renders it differently:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [John 3:16]

Notice how the NIV Bible translates ‘monogenes’ as “one and only”. Even if we take “only begotten” as the correct translation, it cannot be interpreted in a literal sense. The proof is as follows:

“By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.” [Hebrews 11:17].

If Trinitarians were to be consistent and interpret the above verse literally like they do with John 3:16, then the consequence is that there is an error in the Bible. Isaac was not the only begotten son of Abraham, he had an older brother, Ishmael. However, Isaac was Abraham’s unique son, in the sense that he was the only son that Abraham had with his wife Sarah. How about Jesus, is he unique? He certainly is, he’s the only Prophet coming back in the End Times. This is what Muslims also believe.

Now regarding the phrase “Son of God”, does that imply divinity? It does not, because there are many “Sons of God” in the Bible. In the words of the great Ahmad Deedat, God has sons by the tons in the Bible:

“the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” [Luke 3:38]

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.” [Job 1:6]

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” [Matthew 5:9]

Here we have examples where Adam, the angels and peacemakers are called “sons of God” and “children of God”. This proves that in first century Palestine, the term son of God was a sort of title which was bestowed on any righteous or holy person.

Here the writings of the author of the First Epistle of John, whom Christians believe is the same author that wrote John 3:16, should settle any dispute over the interpretation of the term “son of God”:

“This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.” [1 John 3:10]

Are Trinitarians prepared to say that any person who “does not do what is right” is the offspring of the devil, in a literal, begotten sense? Consistency and common sense dictates that Son of God, much like children of the devil, is a metaphorical title that in no way relates to the genealogical relationship of a person with God or the devil.

4. I and my father are one [John 10:30]

The following verse is commonly used to try and show that Jesus and God are one in nature:

“I and the Father are one.” [John 10:30]

Just four short verses later, Jesus refutes the Trinitarian understanding of the above verse. When some Jews twist the words of Jesus and try to accuse him of claiming divinity, he responded with:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’ [John 10:34]

So Jesus clarified, with a scriptural example well known to them, that he was using the metaphorical language of the prophets which should not be interpreted as ascribing divinity to himself or to other human beings.

Moreover in a later chapter Jesus uses exactly the same language in relation to the Disciples:

“I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.” [John 17:11]

Here Jesus is praying that his Disciples be made one like him and the Father. The Trinitarian understanding of John 10:30 necessitates that Jesus here is praying that the Disciples become one human entity, which is absurd. The correct understanding in this verse and John 10:30 is a oneness of purpose, not a oneness nature.

5. Jesus has the Father in him [John 14:11]

In this verse Jesus responds to a request by the Disciples to show them God:

“Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.” [John 14:11]

This might imply Jesus’ divinity as Trinitarians claim, but only if the remainder of the same Gospel is ignored. Jesus goes on to say:

“On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.” [John 14:20]

Thus, if Jesus’ statement “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” means that he is God, then so were the Disciples. However this clearly symbolic language that means oneness of purpose, not oneness of nature.

6. The I AM sayings of Jesus

For the following verse of the Old Testament, many versions of the Bible translate one of the Hebrew names of God as “I am”:

God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” [Exodus 3:14]

Trinitarians often point out that Jesus uses the same phrase “I am” in a declaration about himself in the Gospel of John:

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” [John 8:58]

They claim that this echoes the name God gives Himself in the Old Testament, and so Jesus is God.

Let’s first start with the Old Testament. It turns out that the Hebrew word that has been translated as “I AM”, ‘ehyeh’, is inaccurate. The Trinitarian Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House, pp. 330-331, says of Exodus 3:14:

“It has been rendered, ‘I WILL BE that I WILL BE’ as an indication of God’s sovereignty and immutability” and “the translation … that probably comes closest to the intention of God at this point is, ‘I will be there’.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica has to say on this subject:

“The writer of Exodus 3:14-15 … explains it [the meaning of God’s name] by the phrase EHYEH asher EHYEH (Ex. iii., 14); this can be translated ‘I am that I am’ or more exactly ‘I am wont to be that which I am wont to be’ or ‘I will be that which I will be.’” – p. 995, 14th ed., v. 12.

Moreover the Hebrew ‘ehyeh’ itself is always rendered as “I will be” in the rest of the writings of Moses:

Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. [Genesis 26:3]

And God said, “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.” [Exodus 3:12]

The Lord gave this command to Joshua son of Nun: “Be strong and courageous, for you will bring the Israelites into the land I promised them on oath, and I myself will be with you.” [Deuteronomy 31:23]

Furthermore, it can be shown that New Testament writers themselves understood ‘ehyeh’ to mean “I will be” and NOT “I am”. Paul demonstrates this understanding when he quotes Old Testament verses in Greek:

“I will be (Hebrew ‘ehyeh’) his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands.” [2 Samuel 7:14]

For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?
Or again,

And:

“I will be (Greek ‘ego esomai’) his Father,
and he will be my Son” [Hebrews 1:5]

“Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be (Hebrew ‘ehyeh’) their God.” [Ezekiel 11:20]

This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be (Greek ”) their God,
and they will be my people. [Hebrews 8:10]

Note how Paul translates the Hebrew ‘ehyeh’ into the Greek ‘ego esomai’ (“I will be”) and NOT ‘ego eimi‘ (“I am”). So, we can safely conclude that when John quotes Jesus as saying “I AM”, he is not referring to the Old Testament declarations of God. If Trinitarians insist that Jesus was in fact echoing the Old Testament sayings of God, then John cannot be an inspired writer, because he uses the Greek ‘ego eimi‘ (“I am”) which is a mistranslation the Hebrew, as another writer of the New Testament, Paul, proves.

Finally, for the sake of argument, even if the Hebrew ‘ehyeh’ did mean I AM, then it doesn’t prove the divinity of Jesus. A blind man uses this exact same phrase when referring to himself in the New Testament, so it can’t be interpreted to mean divinity:

His neighbours and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, “Isn’t this the same man who used to sit and beg?” Some claimed that he was. Others said, “No, he only looks like him.” But he himself insisted, “I am the man.” [John 9:8-9]

7. Jesus’ existence predates his birth on earth [John 8:58] [John 17:5]

Trinitarians often quote verses such as the following to show that Jesus had a pre-existence before coming to earth and therefore that shows he is divine:

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” [John 8:58]

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. [John 17:5]

This does not prove that Jesus was divine, because the concept of the pre-existence of the Prophets Solomon and Jeremiah is found in the Old Testament:

“The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old” [Proverbs 8:22]

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” [Jeremiah 1:5]

If Jesus is divine by virtue of his pre-existence, then so too must be Solomon and Jeremiah according to this standard!

8. Some Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he claimed divinity [John 5:18] [John 10:33]

Trinitarians use the following verse to try and prove that Jesus claimed to be equal to God:

“For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” [John 5:18]

This verse is actually unsupportive of the Trinity. It records that Jesus was saying that God was his father, not that he was himself God, or that he was “God the Son.” It is clear that Jesus’ authority came from the fact that he was a Son of God (see point 3 for more detail), not God Himself.

In the very next verse, Jesus says:

Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

The fact that he cannot do anything of his own power negates the notion that he is “equal” with God in a literal sense. Again, Jesus repeats himself:

“By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgement is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.” [John 5:30]

So, the Son Jesus is subordinate to the Father, not equal as Trinitarians claim. Moreover the concept of people being “equal” is found in several places in the Bible. For example, when Joseph was ruling Egypt under Pharaoh, Judah said to him:

Then Judah went up to him and said: “Pardon your servant, my lord, let me speak a word to my lord. Do not be angry with your servant, though you are equal to Pharaoh himself. [Genesis 44:18]

Paul wrote about men who wanted to be considered “equal with us”:

“And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about.” [2 Corinthians 11:12].

Is any Trinitarian really going to claim that Joseph and Pharaoh, or Paul and his opponents, are “of one substance,” and make up “one being” simply because they are called “equal”? Thus this verse of John should be handled consistently like the other verses that mention equality. Jesus was using God’s power and authority on earth, and was thus “equal” to God in the same way Joseph, who was using Pharaoh’s authority and power, was equal to Pharaoh.

Another incident Trinitarians try and use to show that Jesus claimed to be God is when some Jews tried to stone him on the charge of blasphemy:

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” [John 10:33]

Any difficulty in understanding this verse is caused by the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they do in verses 34 and 35, then it would read, “…you, a man, claim to be a god.” In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (Greek ‘theos’, without the article) is translated as “god,” not “God.” So there is inconsistently in the translation. This is important because throughout the Bible many different people are referred to as “gods” in a metaphorical sense. For example the exact same Greek word that was used in John 1o:33 to refer to Jesus as is also used to refer to Satan, Paul and King Herod:

“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel…” [2 Corinthians 4:4]

“The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.” [Act 28:6]

On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22 They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” [Acts 12:21-22]

Obviously the intention is not that Satan, Paul and King Herod are literal gods in the sense that Trinitarians take Jesus as a literal god.

In any case, the very next verse Jesus refutes the Trinitarian understanding of John 10:33. Jesus was not claiming divinity, rather his accusers were twisting his words in order to have an excuse to stone him to death, the punishment for blasphemy. Look at his response:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’ [John 10:34]

So Jesus clarified, with a scriptural example well known to them, that he was using the metaphorical language of the prophets which should not be interpreted as ascribing divinity to himself or to other human beings. He is making the point that it is not blasphemy to describe himself as God’s Son in a metaphorical sense as his accusers’ own Scriptures address human recipients of God’s message as “gods”.

9. Jesus accepted worship as God [Matthew 28:17]

They will quote a passage like the following in order to show that people worshipped Jesus as God and he accepted it (or at least, didn’t reject it):

“When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.” [Matthew 28:17]

The Greek word used in this verse for worship is ‘proskyneō’. Strong’s Bible Dictionary says that this word literally means:

“to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence”

This same word is used to describe acts of reverence to people other than Jesus. Here a servant falls to his knees and “worships” (‘proskyneō’) his master:

“At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’” [Matthew 18:26]

This is part of a parable Jesus gave of a slave who was unable to repay a substantial sum of money to his master. He was merely expressing the kind of reverence and respect due the king, his master and superior. Another example is that Jacob bowed down seven times upon meeting his brother, Esau [Genesis 33:3], or when Joseph’s brothers prostrated themselves, or did obeisance, before him in honour of his position at the Egyptian court [Genesis 42:6]. Clearly, then, acts such as prostrating and kneeling (which are translated as “worship”) are not reserved exclusively for the type of adoration due to God. It can also refer to the respect and honour shown to another person.

Finally, there is a Greek word which does refer to the worship of God, ‘latreuó’. Here is an example of its usage in the New Testament:

‘But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves’, God said, ‘and afterward they will come out of that country and worship [latreuó] me in this place’. [Acts 7:7]

This word is never once used in the New Testament in relation to Jesus, it’s only ever used to describe the devotion given to God. If Jesus were God then one would expect this word to be used in reference to him, but it never is, it’s reserved exclusively for God. There is a perfectly logical explanation as to why this is: the authors of the New Testament did not use this word in relation to Jesus because none of them believed that he is equal to God!

10. Jesus had authority to forgive sins, so he must be God [Mark 2:7]

Christians use the following incident to try and prove that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins, so he must be God:

“Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” [Mark 2:7]

It is true that Jesus seems to have the authority to forgive sins in this instance. However, this does not make him divine, as Jesus told the Disciples they can also forgive sins:

If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” [John 20:23]

So in the Bible it seems that God grants the authority to forgive sins as He pleases. If Trinitarians want to insist that this authority makes Jesus God, then the implication is that so too are the Disciples because they all had the authority to forgive sins.

11. The miracles of Jesus prove he was divine

The point made by Trinitarians is that Jesus must be divine because he performed miracles such as healing people and raising the dead.

Firstly, we must remember that Jesus was only able to perform such feats because God granted him these abilities:

“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” [Acts 2:22]

This is similar to ho God granted other prophets the ability to perform miracles, such as Moses splitting the sea. Although Moses carried out the physical act of striking the sea with his staff, it was God who spilt the sea in two.

Secondly, other prophets throughout the Bible performed miracles which were identical to the miracles of Jesus (please click on image to enlarge):

Jesus miracles table

In conclusion, merely performing miracles does not mean that one is divine.

12. Thomas says to Jesus “my Lord and my God” [John 20:28]

They may use the following verse to support the notion of Jesus being God:

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” [John 20:28]

The Greek language uses the word ‘theos’ (“God” or “god”) with a broader meaning than is customary today. In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, “God” was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil (2 Corinthians 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today. Remember that it was common at that time to call God’s representatives “God,” and the Old Testament contains quite a few examples. When Jacob wrestled with “God,” it is clear that he was actually wrestling with an angel (Hosea 12:4).

Now if the Disciples really believed that Jesus was “God” in the sense that Trinitarians claim, then they would not have “deserted him and fled” when he was arrested. The confession of the two Disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveller, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God…and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:19-21). The Bible is clear that these Disciples thought Jesus was a “prophet.” There is no evidence from the Gospel accounts that Jesus’ Disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas, upon seeing the resurrected Christ, was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

Moreover the context of the verse shows that its subject is the fact that Jesus was alive. Only three verses earlier, Thomas had ignored the eyewitness testimony of the other Disciples when they told him they had seen Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus was such a disputed doctrine that Thomas did not believe it (the other Disciples had not either), and thus Jesus’ death would have caused Thomas to doubt that Jesus was who he said he was – the human Messiah. If Thomas really did believe that Jesus is God, then he would not have doubted (or shown surpirse) that Jesus was alive because such a thing would be a given – God cannot die.

13. Jesus was omnipresent, so he must be God [Matthew 18:20]

Christians use the following statement by Jesus to try and prove that he is divine because they claim it demonstrates his omnipresence:

“For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” [Matthew 18:20]

Firstly, this verse can be interpreted metaphorically. When we look at the context we find that the topic it is speaking of starts earlier in verse 15:

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’” [Matthew 18:15-16]

Notice here the numbering: this is where the “two or three” phrase is first brought into the picture. This is a reference back to the Mosaic law:

“On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.” [Deuteronomy 17:6]

This is a system of accountability, Mosaic law never allowed for the conviction of another without a “fair trial.” In Matthew, we have the same situation. There is a believer who has been charged with an unnamed offense. If you cannot take care of it on your own, get some others to listen to each side. The final act, if the previous encounter was unfruitful, is to bring it before the church. If the accused is deemed guilty by the church and still does not repent, disassociation is necessary. “Two or three” have gathered in the name of Jesus and as such Jesus will be in their midst, metaphorically speaking, by virtue of them following the commands he has ordained.

Secondly, even if we were to interpret this as Jesus literally being omnipresent, it still wouldn’t prove his divinity as the same author tells us:

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”[Matthew 28:18]

If Jesus has the ability of omnipresence, then it is only because God gave him the authority. Since he receives his authority from a higher power, then he cant be God.

Finally, any ambiguity over whether Jesus is omnipresent in a Godly sense is resolved when we read explicit verses in Matthew where Jesus is said to have limited knowledge:

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” [Matthew 24:36]

Since the knowledge of Jesus is lacking by his own admission, then he can’t be omniscient, which is an attribute of God. If Jesus lacks any of the attributes of God then he is inferior to God and not His equal.

14. I am the Alpha and the Omega [Revelation 22:13]

Trinitarians claim that because Jesus refers to himself as “Alpha and Omega”, “First and Last” and “Beginning and End”, which are all attributes of divinity, and so he must be God:

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” [Revelation 22:13]

Throughout Revelation 22 the subject that is speaking switches between God, John, the angel and Jesus. John is identified as speaking in 22:8. The angel speaks in 22:9 and continues speaking in 22:10. The angel may be still speaking in 22:11, or it could be John.

Now, is it the angel still speaking in 22:12, or is it God, Jesus, or even John? We can analyse the styles of speech to try and work out who it might be. If we take John as an example, we find that he typically commences speaking with the phrase “I, John”. In fact this phrase identifies him as a new speaker in every instance John uses it, such as Revelation 1:9; 22:8. In Revelation 22:16, we see Jesus using the phrase “I, Jesus”, which like John would indicate that he has started speaking. If Jesus has only started speaking in 22:16, then he can’t be the one speaking in 22:13, which is the key verse in question (“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End”).

So who is speaking in 22:16? It most likely is the angel quoting God, as the angel earlier mentions “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place” in 22:6. So the angel is quoting God as saying “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End”.

Trinitarians may argue that because 22:6 says that God sent the angel, and 22:16 says Jesus sent the angel, therefore God and Jesus are one and the same being who sent the angel. This is not necessarily the case, as God the Father (to use Biblical terminology) is the ultimate sender but he has put the angels under the control of Jesus. Remember Jesus was given all authority according to the Bible, so the angels could have been put under his command. We see in John, for example, that Jesus had the authority to call on God to send him angels:

“Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” [Matthew 26:53]

So although Jesus can call upon them for help, ultimately it is God who has the authority to send them.

Moreover the Priest Melchizedek is spoken of in a similar light to Revelation 22:13:

“Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever”. [Hebrews 7:3]

If Melchizedek has no beginning and end, does that make him God? Such language could simply be figurative. Remember our methodology though, we use the clear verses to explain the unclear ones. In another chapter of Revelation, Jesus explicitly claims to have a God which shows that the author of Revelation did not believe he was equal to God:

“The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.” [Revelation 3:12]

15. The Philippians hymn [Philippians 2:6-9]

Trinitarians claim that this passage (known as the Philippians hymn) is clear proof of Jesus being God:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name.

[Philippians 2:6-9]

At first glance this passage may appear to be a clear cut evidence for Jesus being God, especially given the statement “being in very nature God”. However we need to look to the whole of Philippians to get the correct understanding. Later in Philippians, Paul clearly distinguishes between Jesus and God:

“and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” [Philippians 2:11]

Besides speaking of God and Jesus separately, when Paul mentions “Form of God” he uses the Greek word ‘morphe’ which  means “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision”. This is another way of saying image of God, and an image of something is not the thing itself. The Greek word ‘eikon’ is also used by Paul in his writings, and the two words are interchangeable. This is according to the New Testament scholar Ralph P. Martin who states in “Morphe in Philippians 2:6 Expository Times, Vol. 70, no.6”:

“That morphe and eikon are equivalent terms that are used interchangeably in the LXX.”

The New Testament scholar James Dunn also states in Christology in the Making, p. 115:

“It has long been recognized that morphe and eikon are near synonyms.”

An understanding of image will help us in the understanding of form. Paul also says that man is the image of God, which proves that such statements do not imply equality with God:

“A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God…” [1 Corinthians 11:7]

Furthermore, the following clear statement by Paul should dispel any notion of Jesus being equal to God:

“But I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” [1 Corinthians 11:3]

If God is the “head of Christ” then Jesus is clearly not God’s equal!

Now, let’s examine the Philippians hymn statement “he made himself nothing”. If this hymn really is an evidence for the divinity of Jesus, then Trinitarians have a problem. If Jesus made himself nothing then that means that his divine side was made “nothing”. But this violates the Orthodox creedal formula for the Trinity s defined in the Chalcedon Creed and as believed in by Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians:

“Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.”

 

You can see that the Chalcedon Creed defines Jesus’ nature as fully God and fully man at all timeswithout division, without separation. Yet to understand the hymn’s mention of “he made himself nothing” in Trinitarian terms is a violation of this creed, a rejection of the Trinity, because the implication is that the divinity of Jesus became “nothing”.

Another problematic statement in the hymn is “God exalted him to the highest place“. If Jesus was already equal to God as Trinitarians claim, then the implication is that Jesus was elevated to a position higher than God! So, it shows that he could not be God to begin with.

So, what is the Philippians hymn actually saying about Jesus? What is apparent is that the author of Philippians, Paul, is not comparing Jesus to God but rather contrasting Jesus with Adam. This contrast is unmistakable in Paul’s other writings:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…

…Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come [Jesus].

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man [Adam], how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many…

…For if, by the trespass of the one man [Adam], death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!”

[Romans 5:12–17]

This contrast between Jesus and Adam is echoed in the Philippians hymn as well, in that Adam was made in the image of God (see Genesis 5:1) and disobedient, while Jesus is similarly the form of God but was obedient. Thus God rewards Jesus by giving him a higher status than what he had before.

In summary, when taken in the context of all of Paul’s writings, the Philippians hymn doesn’t support the claim that Jesus is God. Rather all it shows is that he obeyed God by humbling himself and thus was exalted. This is in contrast to Adam who was the image of God but disobedient.

16. Jesus is the image of God [Colossians 1:15-20]

Trinitarians claim that this passage is clear proof of Jesus being God:

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

[Colossians 1:15-20]

At first glance this passage may appear to be a clear cut evidence for Jesus being God, especially given the statement that the “Son is the image of the invisible God”. There are two noteworthy points here, the reference to Jesus being the “Son” and the reference to him being the “image of the invisible God”:

The term “Son of God” is applied to many people throughout the Bible and so is not meant to be taken literally (see point 3 for more detail).

With regards to being called the “image of the invisible God”, this statement cannot be affirming the Trinity. If Jesus were “God”, then the verse would simply say so, rather than saying he is the “image” of God. By comparison the Father is plainly called “God” throughout the New Testament, and this would have been a good place to say that Jesus was God. Instead, we are told that Jesus is the image of God. If one thing is the “image” of another thing, then the “image” and the “original” are not the same thing. The Father is literally God, and that is why there is no verse that calls the Father the “image” of God! Moreover the same author, Paul, also applies the same term “image of God” to people other than Jesus. The Greek word used in the verse for image, ‘eikon’, is also applied to man in general which proves that such statements do not imply equality with God:

“A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image [eikon] and glory of God…” [1 Corinthians 11:7]

Moving on in Colossians, the next statement is “For in him all things were created… all things have been created through him and for him”. This verse must be read carefully with an understanding of the usage of words and figures of speech. For example, when Absalom was holding a council against his father, David, 2 Samuel 17:14 says that “all the men of Israel” agreed on advice. “All” the men of Israel were not there, but the verse means “all” who were there. Another example is Jeremiah 26:8, which says that “all the people” seized Jeremiah to put him to death, but the context makes it very clear that “all the people” were not even present, and people who came to the scene later wanted to release Jeremiah. In John 16:30 the Disciples say that Jesus “knows all things”. If this is interpreted literally, then we have a contradiction, because Jesus himself says that he does not know when the Hour will occur (Matthew 24:36). In summary the phrase “all things” as used in Colossians is ambiguous as it can be reasonably interpreted to mean a limited sense of “all”.

The final statement in Colossians is “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him”. Please refer to point 19 for an explanation of why this cannot equate to the divinity of Jesus.

Finally, recall our methodology for correctly understanding the Bible – we will interpret ambiguous verses in light of clear ones. Any ambiguity in Colossians can be resolved by the existence of clear statements by the same author, Paul, which dispel any notion of Jesus being equal to God:

“But I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” [1 Corinthians 11:3]

If God is the “head of Christ” then Jesus is clearly not God’s equal!

17. Baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19]

Trinitarians claim that Jesus commanding the Disciples to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit represents a Trinitarian formula:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. [Matthew 28:19]

This verse is part of the ending of Matthew and is known as the Great Commission. It turns out that there are serious doubts about the reliability of this verse in Matthew. One reason is that if Jesus really did command his Disciples to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then we would have to expect that whenever the New Testament mentions baptisms, they would have been obedient to Jesus by uttering this exact formula. However what we find is that in the Book of Acts – which occurs long after the Great Commission would have taken place – Peter and the Disciples consistently baptise in the name of Jesus only:

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. [Acts 2:38]

“because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus”. [Acts 8:16]

“So he ordered that they be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days”. [Acts 10:48]

“On hearing this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus”. [Acts 19:5]

There is not a single occurrence of the Disciples baptising anyone according to the so-called Trinitarian formula, and no rational explanation for their apparent disobedience. All the records in the New Testament show that people were baptised into the name of Jesus only. Moreover Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340), known as “the Father of Church History”, quoted this passage in several places without the Trinitarian baptismal formula. He never quotes it as it appears today in modern Bibles, but always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.” For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name”.

This argument alone does not prove that the Trinitarian baptismal formula is a fabrication, as it is an argument from silence (plus there are some early Church fathers who do quote it in their writings). However its omission in the writings of Eusebius, together with its consistent omission by the Disciples whenever they performed baptisms, provide strong evidence that the original verse in Matthew only mentioned to baptise in the name of Jesus. Thus its plausible that the Trinitarian formula was subsequently added to Matthew to justify a later-evolved doctrine of the Trinity.

Now, even if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned in the original text of this verse, that does not prove the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the three persons of the Trinity – the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – together make “one God”. This verse refers to three individuals, but it never says that they are “one”. The only statement of this nature that can be found in the Bible is 1 John 5:7, known as the “Johannine Comma”, which is a fabrication (see point 2 for more detail). The reasoning of Trinitarians is that in order to be baptised into something, that something has to be God. But that reasoning is demonstrably false, because the Bible states that the Israelites were “baptised into Moses”:

“They were all baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”. [1 Corinthians 10:2]

Clearly it would be absurd to argue that because the Israelites were baptised into Moses, therefore Moses is God!

Finally, in reading the book of Matthew, we note that there is no presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. If the mention of baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit really is a Trinitarian formula as claimed, then it is strange indeed that Jesus would introduce the doctrine of the Trinity for the first time here in the next-to-last verse in the book without it being mentioned earlier.

18. A child will be born and he will be called God [Isaiah 9:6] [Matthew 1:23]

Here is an Old Testament passage which Trinitarians often take as a prophecy of God being born on earth:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

[Isaiah 9:6]

Firstly this is a mistranslation of the Old Testament. Christians render Isaiah 9:6 in the future tense to make it appear like a Messianic prophecy. Here is a more accurate translation of the original Hebrew (please note that Isaiah 9:6 is actually Isaiah 9:5 in the Jewish Bible):

“For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed upon his shoulder, and [He, the] Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father/Patron, called his name: Ruler of Peace”

So, the original Hebrew actually has the perfect form for the verb ‘yalad’ (“born”) which indicates it carries the literal meaning of a completed action i.e. it is a historical statement (the child has already been born) and not the Messianic prophecy that Christians make it out to be. To demonstrate the inconsistency of the English Bible translations, let’s look at an example of another usage of this same exact verb ‘yalad’:

“Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to call on the name of the Lord”. [Genesis 4:26]

Note that in this case the same verb ‘yalad’ has been correctly translated into the past tense in English.

Moreover Jews believe that this is a statement referring to the Prophet Hezekiah which was fulfilled long before the birth of Jesus. Hezekiah is the only person called mighty God in entire Bible, as his name itself means “Strength of the Lord”. Such a description is never used for Jesus anywhere in the Bible.

In fact the verse actually goes against the doctrine of the Trinity, because Trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, therefore the phrase “Everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9:6 cannot be a reference to Jesus. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons and so Jesus cannot simultaneously be the Son and the Father; it is an obvious self-contradiction.

Another common verse they use is a statement in Matthew which gives the baby Jesus a name which means “God with us”:

“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”). [Matthew 1:23]

The name can be translated as, “God with us” or “God is with us”. We know that God was with the people in Jesus, just as He was with Moses and the other Prophets.  Moreover the verse actually only says that the child will be “called” by this name, and does not tell us anything about his intrinsic nature by having such a name. Symbolism in names can be seen throughout the Bible, it is not unique to Matthew 1:23 or Isaiah 9:6. Many people were given names that would cause great problems if believed literally. Are we to believe that Elijah was “My God is Yahweh”, or that Bithiah, a daughter of Pharaoh, was the sister of Jesus because her name is “daughter of God”? Are we to believe that Dibri, not Jesus, was the “Promise of God”, or that Eliab was the real Messiah since his name means “My God [is my] father”? Of course not, it would be a great mistake to claim that the meaning of a name proves a literal truth. Even places like Jerusalem and things like altars were given such names:

“In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The Lord Our Righteous Savior”. [Jeremiah 33:16]

“Moses built an altar and called it The Lord is my Banner”. [Exodus 17:15]

These verses prove conclusively that just because someone or something is called “God”, that does not make it God!

19. Fullness of Deity dwells in Jesus [Colossians 2:9]

Trinitarians try to say that because Jesus is said to have the “fullness of Deity” he must therefore be God:

“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” [Colossians 2:9]

What this verse is saying is made clear earlier in Colossians:

“God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him”. [Colossians 1:19]

If Jesus were God, it would make no sense to say that God was “pleased” that the fullness of deity dwelt in him, because, being God, he would always have the fullness of God! So the word “fullness” demonstrates that the verse is speaking of something that one could also have just a part of. It makes no sense to talk about the “fullness” of something that is indivisible. God is indivisible. We never read about “the fullness of God the Father” because, by definition, God is always full of His own nature. Therefore, the verse is not talking about Jesus being God, but about God in some way providing Jesus with “fullness”. A fullness of what exactly? The Gospel of John provides clarification:

“For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the spirit without limit.” [John 3:34]

So we see that Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit, according to the Bible. This is all that “fullness” means, that one is filled with the Holy Spirit, a gift from God according to the Bible.

Moreover the same is said of Christians in numerous places throughout the Bible, they too can be filled with the Holy Spirit and have the fullness of God:

“Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires”. [2 Peter 1:4]

“and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God”. [Ephesians 3:19]

“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit”. [Luke 1:41]

If Trinitarians want to insist that Jesus having the “fullness of God” makes him God, then the implication is that every Christian is God!

20. Jesus is God over all [Romans 9:5]

This is a common evidence put forward by Trinitarians to try and prove the divinity of Jesus:

“Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen”. [Romans 9:5]

We need to be aware that the original Greek text has no punctuation, and thus in some instances there is more than one way a verse can be translated without violating the grammar of the text. Romans 9:5 is one of the verses that can be translated in different ways. Note that the New International Version of the Bible, which the above verse has been taken from, has the following footnote:

a. Romans 9:5 Or Messiah, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Messiah. God who is over all be forever praised!

As you can see, the NIV acknowledges that there are alternative ways of parsing the verse, all of which are perfectly valid. Here are some examples of different translations:

RSV: “to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen”.

KJV: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen”.

NAS: “whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen”.

Note from the examples above that translators and translating committees vary greatly in their handling of Romans 9:5. Although the exact wording of the above translations differs, they fall into two basic categories: those that are worded to make Christ into God, and those that make the final phrase into a type of eulogy referring to God. The context gives us a good clue as to the intent of the author: Paul is writing about the way that God has especially blessed the Jews. The verses immediately before Romans 9:5 point out that God has given them the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship and the promises:

“Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises…” [Romans 9:4]

It therefore makes perfect sense that Paul would follow these statements by praising the one who provided them with all these things, God: “God, who is over all, be blessed forever! Amen”.

Finally, any notion that Paul’s intent was to equate Jesus with God is refuted when we look to his other writings which make it perfectly clear that Jesus is inferior to God:

“But I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” [1 Corinthians 11:3]

If God is the “head of Christ” then Paul clearly does not believe that Jesus is equal to God!

21. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. [Hebrews 13:8]

Trinitarians says that this verse proves the eternality of Jesus and therefore his divinity:

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever”. [Hebrews 13:8]

There is nothing in the context to warrant believing that this verse has anything to do with a “plurality of persons”, “one substance in the Godhead” or any other Trinitarian concept. The verse preceding it says to “remember” the leaders and “imitate” them. The verse just after says, “Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings”. The context makes the intent of the author obvious – believers were being led astray by new teachings, and the author of Hebrews, Paul, was reminding them that Jesus does not change because the truth about him yesterday is the same now and will be the same in the future.

To adopt the understanding of Trinitarians creates a contradiction. The doctrine of the Trinity states that God temporarily took on flesh when the second person of the Trinity, the Son, entered into humanity as Jesus. At this point God was subject to the limitations of human beings, such as needing to eat, drink and sleep, because of the human nature of Jesus. Once Jesus was crucified, resurrected and ascended back to God, he took on a new glorified, spiritual body and is free of all the limitations he had when he was here on earth. If Jesus took on a human nature, whilst at the same time still being God, then the implication is that in becoming man, the nature of God changed. When Jesus then ascended and took on a glorified, spiritual body, whilst still being God, then the nature of God changed once again. Here is a diagram which summarises the Trinitarian claims and why they conflict with their own understanding of Hebrews 13:8 (please click on picture to enlarge):

dawah-diagram

Now, Trinitarians often try to escape this predicament by saying that the nature of God didn’t really change, rather “an additional nature was taken on”. This is a game of semantics, regardless of what happened – the taking on of an additional nature, a mixing of natures etc. – the overall nature of God is different to what it was before. If it wasn’t, then one has to question the purpose of the incarnation in the first place! Now imagine if the reverse was the case, a regular human being took on a divine nature in addition to their human nature. No Trinitarian would argue that this scenario doesn’t result in a change of nature to the human being. They wouldn’t argue, “well, this man-God hasn’t really changed in nature, his original finite human nature is only being complemented by an additional infinite nature”. Yet this scenario is no different to God becoming man, the only difference is the direction of change (God → man v.s. man → God). Clearly, God changed according to the doctrine of the Trinity, and clearly, this conflicts with the Trinitarian understanding of Hebrews 13:8.

Finally, any notion that Paul’s intent was to equate Jesus with God is refuted when we look to his other writings which make it perfectly clear that Jesus is inferior to God:

“But I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” [1 Corinthians 11:3]

If God is the “head of Christ” then Paul clearly does not believe that Jesus is equal to God!

22. Jesus is Lord [Romans 10:9]

Here Trinitarians claim that by referring to Jesus as “Lord”, it proves Jesus is God:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord”, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [Romans 10:9]

Jesus may be Lord according to the Bible, but “Lord” is not “God”. “Lord” (the Greek word is ‘kurios’) is a masculine title of respect and nobility, and it is used many times in the New Testament. To say that Jesus is God because the Bible calls him “Lord” is very poor scholarship. “Lord” is used in many ways in the Bible, and others beside God and Jesus are called “Lord”:

Property owners are called “Lord” (Matthew 20:8, “owner” = kurios).

Heads of households are called “Lord” (Mark 13:35, “owner” = kurios).

Slave owners are called “Lord” (Matthew 10:24, “master” = kurios).

Husbands are called “Lord” (1 Peter 3:6, “master” = kurios).

A son calls his father “Lord” (Matthew 21:30, “sir” = kurios).

The Roman Emperor is called “Lord” (Acts 25:26, “His Majesty” = kurios).

Roman authorities are called “Lord” (Matthew 27:63, “sir” = kurios).

The problem these verses cause to anyone who says Jesus is God because he is called “Lord” is immediately apparent – many others beside Jesus would also be God!

Moreover it must be recognised that it was God who made Jesus “Lord” according to the Bible. Acts 2:36 says: “God has made this Jesus…both Lord and Christ”. If “Lord” equals “God”, then somehow God made Jesus “God”, which is something that even Trinitarians do not teach, because it is vital to Trinitarian doctrine that Jesus be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. The fact that the Bible says God made Jesus “Lord” is an argument against the Trinity.

23. One like a son of man [Daniel 7:13-14]

Trinitarians claim that the following Old Testament passage is proof that Jesus is God, because Jesus refers to himself as the son of man (e.g. Mark 14:61-62) and here the Old Testament states that the son of man will be worshipped by all nations:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed”. [Daniel 7:13-14]

The first thing to note is that these verses are describing a visionary experience and as such the reality need not conform to the vision’s symbolic details. Daniel does not understand the vision that he is witnessing, and so the Angel Gabriel has to explain it to him:

But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever. [Daniel 7:18]

So the immediate context of these verses indicate that the “son of man” refers collectively to a faithful core of people (“holy people of the Most High”) and not an individual. Now even if the Aramaic phrase “son of man” (literally “son of Adam” in Hebrew) is a reference to an individual, this in and of itself does not prove divinity, it’s an Aramaic idiom of sorts. Daniel himself is referred to as “son of man”:

As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. “Son of man,” he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.” [Daniel 8:17]

The key statement that Christians claim is proof of the divinity of the son of man is “all nations and peoples of every language worshipped him”. The original Aramaic which is often translated as “worship”, ‘pĕlach’, means:

“to serve, worship, revere, minister for, pay reverence to”

So this word doesn’t necessarily mean worship as an act of reverence that is only due to God. We can see this a little later in the chapter:

Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’ [Daniel 7:27]

Here we can see that the same Aramaic word is used in reference to the “holy people of the Most High”. Are Trinitarians going to claim that this means the nations will worship these holy people in the same way as God, or that these holy people are also divine? It is clear that the Aramaic term here means “serve” and is describing how the nations will wish to obey the orders and work for God.

Still assuming that the son of man is referring to an individual, then two distinct beings are presented in the verses, God Almighty (“the Ancient of Days”) and one who is portrayed as being subordinate to Him (“son of man”). If the son of man is God then it would make no sense in the context of the verses as the son of man is said to be given dominion by God Almighty. If the son of man were God then he would already own everything!

Finally, Paul states that Jesus will give whatever dominion he has back to God:

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. [1 Corinthians 15:24]

After handing back what rightfully belongs to God, Jesus will be made subject to God:

When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. [1 Corinthians 15:28]

These verses show that the dominion of Jesus is temporal and he is ultimately subordinate to God, the opposite of what the Trinity doctrine teaches.

24. The Holy Spirit is equated with God [Acts 5:3-5]

The argument put forward is that the Holy Spirit is equated with God:

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land… You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” [Acts 5:3-5]

The Trinitarian reasoning is this – these verses equate God and “the Holy Spirit”, and so they claim that this proves their case that God and “the Holy Spirit” are the same.

At best, these verses offer minimal support for the Trinity because there are other completely acceptable ways to interpret them. For example, throughout the Bible there are many instances where an action is attributed to God and also attributed to another entity that represents God. One such instance is 1 Samuel 12:1,13. Verse one says:

“Samuel said to all Israel, Behold, I have listened to your voice in all that you said to me, and have made a king over you.”

We can see that it was Samuel who directly appointed Saul as King of Israel. In verse 13 however, we read:

“Now therefore see the king whom you have chosen, and whom you have asked for: and, behold, Yahweh has set a king over you.”

Here we see that it is Yahweh, God, who set a king over Israel. If we apply the same logic that Trinitarians apply to Acts 5:3-5, then we would conclude that Samuel is God. However, using common sense we understand that Samuel represented God when he appointed Saul as king over Israel, just like the Holy Spirit represents God in the New Testament.

REFUTING THE CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION

NOTE : This article is originally from : https://islamreigns.wordpress.com/tag/refuting-crucifixion/

 

REFUTING THE CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION

“…but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to  them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a  surety they killed him not.” – Holy Qur’an 4:157.

The single most important belief in all of Christendom is that Jesus Christ, the long-awaited Jewish Messiah, died on a cross between two thieves and rose from the  dead three days later. In essence,  the entire religion of Christianity  lingers on the veracity of these very events occurring exactly  how they are described in the Gospels and interpreted by Paul.  In short, if no crucifixion, no resurrection, no Christianity! Strobel tells us on page 206:

“The Resurrection is the supreme vindication of Jesus’ divine identity and his inspired teaching. It’s the proof of his triumph over sin and death. It’s the foreshadowing of the resurrection of his followers. It’s the basis of Christian hope. It’s the miracles of all miracles.” Paul perhaps said it best: “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” [I Corinthians 15:17].

Allah must save his prophets? Rhodes says,

“Muslims believe Allah would never have allowed one of his own prophets to be dishonored and suffer a humiliating death on a cross. The crucifixion, we are told, is simply incompatible with Allah’s absolute sovereignty.”

In the Qur’an, we are in fact told that many prophets and  messengers were saved from the imminent wrath of God descending on their unbelieving communities. Allah mentions Moses’ flight out of Egypt, Noah’s construction of the ark, Lot’s departure from the cities of the plain, and the prophets Shu’ayb, Salih, and Hud finding sanctuary  after Allah’s command. Nowhere are we told, however, that a prophet being stoned, crucified, or disemboweled is “incompatible with Allah’s absolute sovereignty.” On the contrary, Allah has revealed through His Prophet concerning the rebellious Children of Israel: “We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay” [Qur’an 2:87; Also see 3:21, 183; 5:70].

Interestingly, Jesus is specifically  mentioned is this verse as someone whom the Jews called an imposter and had the intention of slaying, but were not successful. Allah even mentions that the Prophet Muhammad himself could very well be killed:

“Muhammad is no more than a  messenger: many were the  messenger that passed away  before him. If he died or were  slain, will ye then turn back on  your heels”  (Qur’an  3:144)?

This  is in exact agreement with Jesus’ condemnation in Matthew 23:37:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,  [thou]  that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee.” 

The Christian may ask you, “If Jesus could have been slain or crucified, then why does the Qur’an say that he wasn’t (4:157)?” Because it is simply a  fact that Jesus was not crucified! There would be no incongruity within the message of the Qur’an or Islam if Jesus is killed on a cross or not; we don’t even believe that he atoned for our sins so what difference does it make to us? Why does Allah find  it so important to mention in His eternal Word that Christ wasn’t crucified when there is no religious significance attached to the manner of his death for Muslims? It’s important because it never happened, that’s why.

Geisler and Saleeb put a twist on the issue. They say, “Even if Muslims assume that God will deliver his prophets from their  enemies, it is wrong to conclude that he did not deliver Christ from  his enemies. Indeed, this is precisely what the resurrection is.”
We will examine this so-called  “resurrection” a little later in this chapter. For now, you should be aware that Islam’s aim is to make one conscious of the next world. If all of the inhabitants of this planet were singing your praises and decided to elect you the dictator of Earth, it would not benefit you one iota if Allah were displeased with you. Muslims  would most certainly honor any  prophet who is killed without warrant as a noble martyr. Jesus, however, was never killed.

Two Theories

The Qur’an is quite emphatic in its categorical rejection of Christ’s death by crucifixion and simply states that “God raised him up unto Himself” (4:158) and saved Jesus from his enemies. Allah has further said:

“O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute”  (Qur’an 3:55).
This is the extent of our sure knowledge regarding the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Any  speculation other than what Allah has told us would render us no  better than the astray Christians whom Allah charges as  possessing “no certain knowledge but follow only conjecture”  (Qur’an 4:157). But simply for the sake of argument, and also to appease our Christian questioners, let’s examine two of the most widely held Muslim  theories as to what indeed happened to the son of  Mary  over 2,000 years ago – 1) The Swoon Theory  and 2) The Substitution Theory. Remind your Christian friend that these are only possibilities, and that the exact sequence of events brought about by Allah to save Jesus are not known by anyone save Allah Himself. (Note: Orthodox Islam  does not subscribe to the factional Ahmadiyya belief that Jesus did in fact swoon and then  move to India where he died as  an old man.) The Swoon Theory, although much less popular among Muslim scholars, will be the focus of our first analysis. The erudite Ahmad Deedat (may Allah have Mercy upon him) has shown great effort in utilizing the evangelical witnesses to support this theory in his book  Crucifixion or Crucifiction. The theory states that although Jesus might very well have been “crucificted,” that is, placed on the cross, he was not “crucified,” or killed on the cross. As Deedat points out, there is simply no verb in the English or Greek languages to describe a person who has been nailed to a cross yet survived. If you say that he or she was “crucified,” then you should expect the person to be dead. Every Good Friday in the Philippines extremist Catholics re-enact the scourging and killing of Jesus by nailing themselves to crosses yet none of them die from their experiences. Were they then really crucified? Therefore, we  can rightly say according to this theory, that Jesus was  crucificted, and survived his ordeal at Calvary. Interestingly,  Jesus provides himself the greatest evidence in support of this theory as we will see below.

The Sign of Jonas

The Gospels tell us of many  miracles that Jesus performed while preaching to his people in Galilee and Jerusalem. But what was the greatest miracle  of Jesus? Christians would contend  that it was his apparent rising from the dead. Jesus does in fact reveal what his lasting miracle  will be in Matthew 12:39, 16:4, and Luke 11:29. We are told that a group of sadistic Pharisees  approach Jesus with a special request. Although they had certainly heard or perhaps even  seen with their own eyes Jesus do the seemingly impossible, such as raise the dead, feed multitudes,  or heal the blind and lepers, they ask him to perform a miracle on demand. They say, “Master, we would see a sign from thee.”  In other words, “Show us a trick so we can be amused!” But unlike your average street magician,  Jesus is not prepared to pander at the bidding of these unbelieving  “vipers” and rebukes them  severely: “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.”   It takes a very low level of faith to be swayed in our religious convictions by simply watching a  man pull a rabbit out of his hat.  Allah has similarly told us regarding Muhammad in the Word of God: “The Unbelievers say: ‘Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord’” (Qur’an 13:27)?

The nature of Jesus’ teaching, his extreme piety, and his guiding moral example should have been “sign” enough for the Pharisees,  but their hearts were diseased and physical miracles of the immediate nature was not a cure that Jesus saw fit for them. Jesus  continues: “and there shall no  sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:39-40). This  was Jesus’ greatest and lasting miracle – The Sign of Jonas.

So what exactly did happen to Jonas? Let’s examine this tiny  book of only four chapters found in  the Hebrew Bible. A much less detailed story of Jonas, or Jonah, is also found within the pages of  the Qur’an, and he remains the only prophet with the distinct honor of having both a book of the Bible and chapter of the Qur’an named after him  (Chapter 10, Surah Yunus).

We are told that God instructed Jonah to go to Nineveh and admonish the populace of the city about their wickedness. For reasons not given in the Biblical reading, he decides rather to go  down into Joppa and hitches a boat ride across the sea headed for Tarshish. Suddenly a great storm arises and the men present on the boat feel that someone in their very midst brought with him an evil omen. They decide to cast lots and sure enough, the blame fell squarely upon Jonah. Jonah explains to the heathen men that  he was a Hebrew who had “fled from the presence of His Lord” and that the only solution to this problem would be to cast him  into the sea. The men refuse and row desperately toward land but fail. After repeated attempts to  spare Jonah’s life, they supplicate unto God: “We beseech thee, O Lord, we beseech thee, let us not perish for this man’s life, and lay not upon us innocent blood: for thou, O Lord, hast done as it pleased thee” (Jonah 1:14). Compare the men’s gesture of absolving themselves of all guilt with Pilate washing his hands and remarking: “I am innocent of  the blood of this just person (Jesus): see ye [to it]” (Matthew 27:24).

In order to calm the torrential storm, the men cast Jonah into the sea and offer sacrifices and vows. Therefore, one man must die to save the others. In John, the High Priest Caiaphas, fearing another doomed Jewish insurrection led by Jesus,  comments: “One man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (John  11:50).

Now we are told that a great fish  or whale swallows Jonah whole and he stays inside of its massive belly for three days and three nights praying to the Almighty.  Finally, after uttering the  clinching words, “Salvation is of the Lord!” (Jonah 2:9), God orders the fish to vomit him onto dry land. Jonah goes straightway into Nineveh and after giving his people a renewed sense of faith, they immediately become believers.

After reading the entire book of  Jonah you may think to yourself, “what was the miracle or sign that Jesus referred  to and what does it have to do with Jesus?”  After  all, Jesus does say: “For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation” (Luke 11:30). What was Jonah a sign of?  Imagine that you were on that boat and witnessed the events that took place on that stormy  night. You saw how Jonah was tossed overboard and left to tread water in the vast sea and as you and the other men begin to row away, you are shocked to see  a huge fish swallow Jonah and disappear under water. What would you conclude about the physical condition of Jonah? You would be very safe in assuming that he has died. To your utter amazement, however, you spot Jonah walking the streets of Nineveh three days later. What has happened? Is he a ghost? Has he been resurrected? What?

Remember that Jonah was alive  in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights. He never actually died, but to those on the boat, it certainly seemed as if he had. When referring to the  apparent crucifixion of Jesus, Allah says, “so it was made to appear unto them,” the “them” referring to the enemies of Jesus who planned to bring about his death. Therefore, the great sign of Jonah unto the Ninevites was the amazing method in which he had escaped the clutches of  death when it seemed impossible for him  to do so. According to Jesus (Luke 11:30 above), this Sign was applicable to his generation as well. He also said: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly;  so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the  heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). How was Jonah in the belly of the whale? Alive. Yet if you ask any Christian in the world how Jesus was in the heart of the earth, they will invariably shout, “Dead!”

Christians will try to convince you that Jesus was simply referring to the time factor, not the physical condition of Jonah. They will say, “Jesus meant that he will be ‘entombed’ for three days and  nights like Jonah was.” Simply  going into a tomb for three days, however, is not a miracle. Even you or I can go into a tomb or a cave for three days and nights  and emerge unscathed. The real  miracle of Jonah was that he was supposed to die but did not. Jonah proved to his people the power of his God by escaping death. This evidence was enough  to convince the Ninevites of the truthfulness of his prophetic mission and they repented unto God and entered into faith. Jesus likewise demonstrated the power of “his Father” by conquering death and thus providing further evidence that he was the true Messiah of the Jewish people. He had never died, and is still alive.

The Gospel accounts of the resurrection do not even agree  with Jesus’ statement regarding the time duration in the “heart of  the earth.” If he was crucified on Good Friday, placed into the tomb at the start of the Sabbath, and “resurrected” on Sunday  morning, then that equates to only two nights and one day, not three days and three nights. The Christian may say that Jesus only said “three days and three nights” as a manner of speaking, and did not mean it to be taken literally.  Tell him, “If Jesus did not want us to interpret this literally, then how can you claim that the ‘time factor’ was what Jesus intended to emphasize as being his lasting and greatest miracle?”

Luke’s post-“resurrection” events

Luke 24 tells us that Jesus appears to his disciples after the “resurrection” in the Upper Room. He narrates: “And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you”  (verse  36). Notice the reaction of the disciples in the next verse: “But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit ” (verse 37). Why did the disciples suppose that Jesus was a spirit when he looked no different than before? We have to go back to the story of Jonah. If one of those men in the boat saw what had happened to Jonah in  the sea and then saw him again three days later on land, he would also conclude that it was the ghost or spirit of Jonah. This is exactly what the disciples believed about Jesus. Therefore, he sets their hearts at ease: “Why are ye troubled? Why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet” (verses 38-40). Jesus is essentially saying, “Why are you scared? Can’t you see that it’s me, Jesus! Look at my hands and feet, I’m the same person. Do spirits have flesh and bones like this?”  The disciples, however, were still very doubtful so Jesus asks them, “Have ye here any meat?” And they gave him a piece of a “broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took [it], and did eat before them” (verses 41-43). What does eating prove? It proves that he is the same physical Jesus.

Christians will not argue concerning these points. They  will say, “Yes, we agree. He was the same physical Jesus. That’s  because he was physically resurrected!” But do resurrected  bodies require nourishment of a physical nature? Let’s consult the Biblical Jesus. After the Jews  come to him with yet another riddle, this time about a woman who married seven brothers consecutively, Jesus comments about them in the next world:

•  “For in the resurrection they  neither marry, nor are given in  marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” – Matthew 22:30.

•  “For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”   – Mark 12:25.

•  “And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world  marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from  the  dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.”  – Luke 20:34-35.

From the above mentioned verses found in the synoptics, it  becomes very clear that resurrected bodies become  spiritualized or immortal. They no longer need to eat, drink, sleep, have sex, etc., for they are “equal unto the angels.” If Jesus was resurrected, then he must also be in a spiritualized form. Yet he denies this outright: “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” He is not spiritualized and thus not resurrected. Yet Christian apologists such as Geisler and Saleeb continue to refer to Jesus as being in a  “transformed body,” meaning the same body but now immortal, unworldly, spiritual! They are  making the same mistake that the disciples made. He is not  transformed. He is the same Jesus in all respects. McDowell similarly  says that the body of Jesus had passed “right through his grave clothes and into a new existence.”
A Christian once informed me that in the three passages above, Jesus was only referring to the final resurrection of the dead at judgment, and not necessarily his own resurrection. Although there is nothing in the very general context to suggest this assertion, I conceded that he had made a fair observation. “Besides,” he  said, “it doesn’t clearly state that resurrected bodies become spiritualized anyway.” Then he accused me of reading into the scripture. Maybe hearing it from  Paul, his real Master, will convince him:

“But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, (Paul loves calling people fools despite Jesus’ stern warning against this.) that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may  chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds. [There are] also celestial  bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial  [is] another. [There is] one glory  of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory. So also [is] the resurrection of the  dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown  in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural  body; it is raised a spiritual body.  There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”  – I Corinthians 15:35-44.

Resurrected bodies

“What about Lazarus!?” my  Christian friend exploded. “Was he not physically resurrected by  Jesus and not made spiritual?”  The answer is yes. But where is Lazarus now? He’s dead. He died twice. Let’s turn it over to Paul:  “And as it is appointed unto men  once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). The Christian at this point must either agree that there is clear contradiction in his Bible, or admit that Lazarus’ resurrection was the exact same type as that of the Christian Jesus, namely, physical yet transformed (spiritual). So what is the solution? It’s a lose/lose situation!

The Qur’an also mentions Jesus’  God-given power to raise the dead: “And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I  quicken the dead, by God’s leave” (Qur’an 3:49). Allah also tells us of the Prophet ‘Aziz: “Or take the  similitude of one who passed by  a hamlet, all in ruins to its roofs. He said: ‘Oh! how shall Allah bring  it (ever) to life, after this its death?’ but Allah caused him  to die for a hundred years, then raised him up again”  (Qur’an 2:259). As Muslims we believe that both of these aforementioned resurrections were purely physical. Therefore, we can conclude that in general, resurrected bodies become  spiritualized. But God can do what He wills, and if He wants to raise someone from the dead in exactly the same form physically, then He certainly can. “Exactly!” the Christian will say, “that’s what happened with Jesus.”

Only Three Possibilities

There are only three possible explanations for Jesus’ physical appearances after the “resurrection.” The first possibility, known as the  Doomsday resurrection, maintains that Jesus was raised in a physically “transformed” body identical in nature to that in which we are all raised on the day of general resurrection at the end of time. This would make Jesus  immortal and spiritually oriented. This was also precisely the type of body that the disciples thought Jesus was raised into in Luke 24. Again, Jesus corrects them by  stating that he was not a spirit, but the same Jesus. He then eats to further prove that he is not spiritually but rather physically  oriented. Christians run into  trouble here when they claim that Jesus was physically resurrected yet immortal, but not spiritual. This argument is completely  devoid of logic because immortality is an attribute of spiritualized bodies, not physical ones. If a Christian wants to say  that Jesus was resurrected immortal, then he must also say  that he was a spirit, yet Jesus denies this. Unlike Luke, John mentions that the “doors were locked” when Jesus appeared to  his disciples, seemingly  materializing out of thin air! (John 20:19). Only a spiritually resurrected body can do this. So was he a spirit or not? Who is lying, John or Jesus?

A second possibility, known as the Earthly resurrection, asserts  that Jesus was raised into the same exact physical body that he  had been in before his death. This would make Jesus mortal and physically oriented. This type of resurrection is identical in nature to those of Lazarus mentioned in the Gospel of John, and ‘Aziz mentioned in Sura 2 of the Holy Qur’an. This would also mean that Jesus was subject to hunger, thirst, pain, fatigue, and death. Ask your Christian friend that if Jesus were to be spotted by  a  group of Pharisees after his resurrection, would it be possible for them to mob Jesus and kill him again. The Christian will say  no. But why? He will answer, “Because he was immortal, and  also because my Bible says that we can only die once.” Ask him,  “Do you mean he was  spiritualized?” If he answers no, then remind him once again that  all immortal beings are spiritualized. That is why “God is Spirit” (John 4:24). If he answers yes, then you’ve got him trapped because Jesus says: “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Luke 24:39).

The third possibility, known as the Jonas resurrection, states  that Jesus never died in the first place, but had escaped death as Deedat says, “by the skin of his teeth.” This is the only way to reconcile Christianity’s 2,000-year parade of confusion and misguidance with regards to the dogma of the resurrection.

Evidence supporting a Jonas resurrection:

A)  The rolled away stone

Mark tells us: “And they said  among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher? And when they  looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very  great” (Mark 16:3-4). If Jesus was resurrected immortal as Christians claim, and if he could simply “beam” in and out of rooms as John says (John 20:19), then why does the stone need to  be rolled away at all? Wouldn’t it be a greater, more convincing  miracle if the stone had not moved yet Jesus was gone? Sure it would be. This is exactly the reason why Matthew records that the women actually saw an angel roll the stone away to reveal a missing Jesus (Matthew 28:2)! This statement of Matthew is obviously a fabrication, perhaps invented to erase from your  mind the fact that one man, Joseph, was able to roll the stone over the door of the sepulcher on Friday  night  (Matthew 27:60). Luke and John saw it as Mark did, the stone was l already rolled away from the sepulcher (Luke 24:2; John 20:2). The fact that Jesus needed the stone removed to exit the tomb  indicates that he was the same physical Jesus who never died.

B)  He’s “ALIVE!”

Mark says: “And they, when they  had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not”  (Mark 16:11). The disciples heard from the women that Jesus was risen and alive. According to the Strongs’ Concordance, the Greek for risen, egeiro, also has primary definitions, “to arouse from sleep, to awake.” But if I say  that a person is resurrected, then that can only mean that he or she was dead and then raised back to life. In Matthew 27:63, the Pharisees tell Pilate: “Sir, we remember that deceiver said, while he was yet alive…”   Somebody should have told them that he is still “alive.” Even if Jesus did appear unto “five hundred of his brethren” as Paul says (I Corinthians 15:6), this does not prove that he was dead then resurrected but only that he was alive.

•  “And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they  had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive” (Luke 24:23).

•  “To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by  many infallible proofs, being seen  of them forty days, and speaking  of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God”  (Acts 1:3).

• “And as they were afraid, and bowed down [their] faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why  seek ye the living among the dead”(Luke 24:5)?

The fact that Jesus is always  referred to as being alive and  risen rather than resurrected  indicates that he was the same physical Jesus who never died.

C)  Jesus in disguise

When Mary Magdalene went to the sepulcher in John 20:15 she did not recognize Jesus. She actually thought that he was a  gardener. Ask your Christian friend if resurrected bodies take on the appearances of gardeners. If he says no, then ask him why  Mary thought Jesus was a gardener when he didn’t look like a gardener? The answer is because he was disguised as a gardener! But why? For fear of the Jews. If Jesus were resurrected “in power and glory” as the  Christians claim, then he would have nothing to fear. The passage reads: “Jesus saith unto her,  Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.” 

Luke tells us that Jesus actually  went on a stroll to Emmaus with two of his disciples that had known him personally for at least three years yet failed to recognize him: “And it came to pass, that, while they communed [together]  and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him” (Luke 24:15-16). Apparently, Jesus was still in his gardener costume. The fact that Jesus found it necessary  to guise himself from unruly people who might bring him  further harm indicates that he was the same physical Jesus who never died, and was in fear of being killed.

D)  Women rescuers

On Sunday morning, Mary  Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome go to the garden tomb for a very special reason. According to the Gospels, all three of these women along with Joseph of Arimathaea were present at the events that unfolded the previous Friday at Calvary. If the Swoon Theory  were correct, then these women would certainly have seen at least a glimmer of life in the body of Jesus as he was removed from the cross. Mark tells us that when news of Jesus’ apparent death had reached Pilate, he “marveled” over this because he knew from  experience that it took at least  a couple of days to expire while crucified (Mark 15:44). Jesus had been on the cross for just a few hours. Interestingly, Mark further tells us that it was this same Joseph who “craved for the body of Jesus” and actually went to Pilate to ask him to turn it over to him.  A Christian may point out the fact that Pilate confirmed Jesus’ death via a Roman  centurion before he gave his body to Joseph. He will also inform l you that the Romans were extremely gifted in this practice of killing and soldiers knew that they would be killed themselves if they failed to completely carry  out their duties. You can agree with him here but remind him that God does whatever He wills. Truly if God wanted to save His Messiah from death, making a Roman guard believe that Jesus  was already dead would certainly  be no problem. If fact, God in the Qur’an says this very thing: “But they (Jesus’ enemies) killed him not, nor crucified (caused him to  die  on a cross) him, but so it was made to appear to them”  (Qur’an 4:157).

Mark then tells us that it was exactly these three women (the  two Marys and Salome) who came to the tomb on Sunday morning  to “anoint” the body of Jesus (Mark 16:1). Why would these women want to anoint a dead rotting corpse after three days?  Was this a common practice  amongst the Jews? Isn’t it obvious that these women came to tend to the wounded, ailing, and weary Jesus who had survived his ordeal and thus fulfilled the sign of Jonah? John, recognizing the folly of the synoptic evangelists, tells us in Chapter 19 verse 39 that Nicodemus and Joseph anointed the body of Jesus the night of the crucifixion  with myrrh and aloes, 100 pounds in all. The author of the Fourth  Gospel wants to make it crystal clear, without a shadow of doubt that Jesus did in fact die on the cross. John further proves this point by concocting an incident in which Jesus is impaled with a spear to ensure non-survival, a touch that the synoptics are ignorant of. In all four Gospels we  are told that at least one woman of those present at the crucifixion visited the tomb on Easter Sunday morning. Mark and Luke say that it was to “anoint” Jesus (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1), which cannot be true since John says that this was already done, while Matthew and John provide no  reasons for their unorthodox  visits (Matthew 28:1; John 20:1).

John also mentions the episode in which Mary weeps while facing the empty sepulcher only to hear Jesus’ voice behind her say,“Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou?”  Since Mary is not able to recognize the “gardening” Jesus, she comments, “Sir, if thou have borne him  hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him  away.” Was this the intention of Mary, to “take away” Jesus?  Where would she take him, to another tomb? If John is correct about the time of anointing, then Mary would have had to carry a corpse which would easily weigh in excess of 250 pounds (Jesus plus 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes), all by herself! Unlike the disciples who were terrified upon seeing Jesus in the Upper Room, Mary becomes filled with joy  because she knows that this was no ghost or spirit, but only Jesus wounded but alive.

E)  Body intact

Another fact supporting the Swoon Theory is the admission of John that the Roman soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus as he hanged on the cross. It reads: “Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to  Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs” (John 19:32-33). From this we can deduce: 1) the crossmates of  Jesus were still alive at this time  and 2) Jesus’ unbroken legs would only be useful to him if he were  still alive. Again, just because  it states that the soldier “saw that he (Jesus) was dead already”  does not provide us with a definitive answer. Ask your Christian friend: “Have you considered the possibility that God wanted the soldier to believe  that Jesus had died in order to save him?”

Let’s pretend for arguments’ sake that Jesus was decapitated while he was on the cross, a fate that  some of his disciples would later endure. Would you expect a resurrected Jesus to be walking around headless? Of course not, he would be “transformed” and healed, made spiritual, and raised  incorruptible (to use Paul’s word). Yet Christians do not believe that Jesus’ resurrected body became spiritualized. Therefore, just as Jesus showed Thomas his various wounds to prove his physical  “resurrection,” had his legs been broken, he would have also shown Thomas his bones protruding from his shins. If the Romans had amputated his legs, then Jesus  would have required major  assistance simply to meet with his disciples. The disciples of John the Baptist buried their teacher’s headless body yet Herod believed that Jesus was John resurrected and made spiritual. This provides further proof that resurrected bodies become  spiritualized and immortal, and if Jesus was not spiritualized as  Christians claim, then he was not resurrected either.

The Christian wants the best of both worlds. He will say that Jesus was physically raised yet immortal, he was incorruptible yet not spiritual. You should not be surprised by these illogical beliefs. After all, according to Christianity, three equals one, man is God, bread is flesh, wine is blood, death is salvation, and  begotten means unique!

Unreliable sources

Christians believe that the most solid fact in human history was the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Apologists claim that no other ancient book surpasses the reliability of the Gospel accounts as recorded by the four evangelists in the Bible. You will hear them say, “The Bible is documented historical evidence that Jesus died on the cross and arose three days later and you (Muslims) reject this because  some book revealed 600 years  after the fact told you so!” Respond by agreeing that the Bible is exactly that, a history book. Point out to the Christian the following example: In 1990, we read in our American history textbooks that Thomas Jefferson died on July 4, 1826 leaving a wife and a few white children behind. In 2000, you might have read that Jefferson actually fathered five more children with one of his slaves Sally Hemings. Has history changed? History has not, only our perception of it has. In this case, science has proven that we can’t always rely on what’s written in the history books. As more and more evidence comes to light, we may be forced to rethink the validity of certain past events that we always thought were unshakably true. This is precisely  what the Qur’an has done to the Bible. It confirmed some of it, corrected some of it, and rejected some of it. There never was a Trinity, a begotten Son of God, or a crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

It seems as if the four evangelists are in major disagreement as to who went to the sepulcher on that Sunday morning and what  exactly they saw. Ask your Christian friend how he or she can in good conscience believe these heavily contradictory statements to be the true Word of God. If  the Biblical accounts of the resurrection were to be scrutinized with the same standards by which sayings (ahadith) of the Prophet Muhammad were authenticated, all of the accounts would be thrown out and deemed unreliable. Strobel quotes Charles Templeton who recently said: “The four descriptions of events…differ so markedly at so many points that, with all the good will in the world, they cannot be reconciled.”

image

Jesus said he would “die”

Since this is such a tough issue to debate, the Christian will not back down easily. As stated earlier, the entire basis of Christianity is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Surely Christians will confront you with verses in which Jesus apparently prophesized this event:

•  “And as they came down from  the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.”  – Mark 9:9.

•  “And they shall scourge [him],  and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.”  – Luke 18:33.

•  “For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.”  – Mark 9:31.

“Do these verses seem clear enough to you!” the Christian will ask. Ask him if we can, for just one second, take these sayings  to be figurative and he will immediately roll his eyes and blurt, “No! Isn’t it obvious what he is saying!? How blind are you  Muslims!” Surely the disciples  should have had no problems understanding Jesus, after all, we  are told that Jesus “spoke not to them (the general populace) without a parable; but he explained everything secretly to his own disciples” (Mark 4:34). Of course this contradicts John who quotes Jesus before the Sanhedrin: “I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”  (John 118:20).

Let’s now examine the reaction of the disciples when they heard the above three statements of Jesus. These are the very next verses:

•  “And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean”  (Mark 9:10, NKJV). “So they kept it to themselves, but they often asked each other what he meant by “rising from the dead”  (Mark 9:10, NLT).

•  “And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they  the things which were spoken”   (Luke 18:34, NKJV).
“But they didn’t understand a thing he said. Its significance was hidden from them, and they  failed to grasp what he was talking about”   (Luke 18:34, NLT).

•  “But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him”  (Mark 9-32, NKJV).

It appears as if the disciples had little idea as to what Jesus was talking about. But why? Perhaps they understood these statements to be totally literal and debated mutually about  whether or not Pagans could even kill the Messiah. Unlike Paul, they  conceived of the paradoxical implications of a dead Messiah. For the disciples, a dead Messiah was no Messiah at all.

The Gospels tell us that Jesus often used the word “dead” symbolically. The evangelists as well as Paul do as well. Here are a few examples:

•  Mark tells us that a certain scribe wanted to follow Jesus but asked the latter if he could go bury his father first. Jesus responded: “Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead  (Mark 8:22). The first occurrence of  the word “dead” is used figuratively by Jesus to represent the  spiritually dead, those who have rejected his message. Also see Luke 9:60.

•  Matthew tells us of a ruler to requested Jesus to raise his dead daughter. Jesus responded: “Give place: for the maid is not dead,  but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn” (Matthew 9:24).

Is it possible that the maid only  appeared dead? Perhaps this is what Jesus intended when he said that he would be “dead.” Also see Mark 5:39 and Luke 8:52.

•  Jesus responds to a question put forth by a Sadducee: “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by  God,  saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matthew 22:31-32).

Obviously, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all physically dead yet still alive in their spirit of teaching. Also see Mark 12:27 and Luke 20:38.

•  When the guards posted at the tomb saw an angel roll back the  stone, they were filled with fear and “became as dead men” (Matthew 28:4).

•  After Jesus exorcises a demon from a man, Mark comments: “and he was as one dead;  insomuch that many said, He is  dead” (Mark 9:26).

Yet he was not dead because the next verse states: “But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him  up; and he arose” (Mark 9:27).

•  In his parable of the Prodigal Son, Jesus says: “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry” (Luke 15:24). The words “dead” and “lost” are used synonymously.

•  Paul says, “I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily  ( I  Corinthians 15:31). He means that he suffers daily.

Jesus asks for his life

Christians believe that before the creation of the earth, the Father and Son made a contract together stipulating that the latter would enter into flesh and redeem mankind in the year 4000 (after Adam). They believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus was something ordained since time immemorial. Using this logic, the  greatest Christian saint of all time should have been Judas Iscariot! Was he not the one  who made it all possible? It seems extremely unjust to hold him in contempt for doing something that 1) was already  preordained 4000  years prior by  God and 2) necessary for the redemption of mankind. Yet after all of this, Jesus calls poor Judas “a traitor.” Maybe Jesus didn’t want to die after all? In fact, the synoptics actually record Jesus asking for his life. It appears as if Jesus knows nothing about the contract he supposedly made in heaven with his Father. Why is he so reluctant to die? Even an average zealot will go to his death readily if it meant martyrdom. As is his style, John omits Jesus’  prayer to provide his readers with a sense of security that Jesus did in fact go willingly.

•  “And he went a little further, 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 l will, but as thou [wilt].”  -Matthew 26:39.

•  “And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me:  nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.”  – Mark 14:36.

•  “Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from  me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”  – Luke 22:42.

According to Jesus’ own teaching, God must answer his request and deliver him. He said: “If a son shall ask bread of any of  you that is a father, will he give him  a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” (Luke  11:11; Also see Mark 7:10). “And I say unto you, ask, and it shall be  given you; seek, and ye shall find;  knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (Luke 11:98; Also see Matthew 7:7). “But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give [it]  thee”  (John 11:22). Instead of throwing him a fish, God decides to have His Son spat upon, stripped, scourged, nailed to a cross, and finally sent to Hell for three days and Christians call this love? Even up until the very end  Jesus is defiant. He wails on the  cross: “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?  That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” (Matthew 27:46)? Are these the words of a willing sacrifice? Shouldn’t he be happy about completing his mission and saving the world? Instead he tells his disciples just before  his arrest: “My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death”  (Mark 14:34). Crying, complaining,  sweating, and bargaining? Consider McDowell’s words: “When he went to the cross  almost 2000 years ago, a holy, just, righteous God poured out  his wrath upon his Son.” God kills an innocent man and Christians call it “holy, just, and righteous”!

Alleged Old Testament Prophecies of Jesus’ Death

After the apparent death of Jesus on the cross, the witnessing  of Paul and the Hellenizers found staunch opposition from most Jews over one issue: How can the Romans kill the Messiah? Paul professes: “But we preach Christ  crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness” (I Corinthians 1:23).

Therefore, the heavily Paulized New Testament authors took it upon themselves to search long and hard for passages in the Hebrew Bible that they could incorporate into their evangelical accounts. Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 tickled them the most, and these along with other socalled prophecies of the death of Christ are examined below.

Sold for thirty pieces of silver

Christians say  that Zechariah 11:12-13 is fulfilled by Matthew  27:9. Here are the  verses respectively: “And I said unto them, If ye think good, give [me]  my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty  [pieces] of silver” (Zechariah 11:12); “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value”  (Matthew 27:9). Did you notice it? Matthew erroneously cites the book of Jeremiah instead of Zechariah! Jeremiah only mentions “seventeen shekels of silver”   (Jeremiah 32:9). Yet Christians believe this is God talking.

Isaiah 53 – “The Suffering  Servant”

Isaiah tells us: “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our]  faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not…But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed…He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet  he opened not his mouth: he is brought as  a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before  her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of  my  people was he stricken” (Isaiah 53:3,  5,  7-8).

In the Traditional KJV of the Bible the caption to this chapter reads, “the sin-bearing Messiah” yet the word “Messiah” does not appear  in the original text in any way, shape, or form. Harris says (emphasis mine):

To defend Jesus against charges that he “failed”  to re-establish David’ kingdom, early Christians point to certain passages in the Hebrew Bible that seemed to them to illustrate the nature of Jesus’ unexpected messiahship. In Christian interpretations of the  Messiah, he became the “prophet like Moses” described ) in Deuteronomy (18:15-20) and the mysterious “suffering servant” in Isaiah (52:13-53:12). In the original texts, neither the Mosaic prophet nor the anonymous servant is associated with the Messiah, and we do not know whether these two unidentified figures were given messianic  emphasis before the  Christian period (pages 75-76).

McDowell admits: “The suffering Messiah was completely foreign to the Jewish conception of messiahship” (page 73).

Christians love informing people that Jesus “opened not his  mouth” as it states in verse 7. However John tells us that when the high priest Annas and the entire council of officers were interrogating Jesus, he could keep his peace no longer and began to  defend himself. In fact, his defense is so convincing that one of the officers which stood by  “struck Jesus with the  palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so” (John 18:22)? But Jesus was no easy pushover. He retorts sharply: ) “If I have  spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me” (John 18:23)? Such behavior is hardly comparable to a “dumb sheep.”

Also, when Pilate asks Jesus flatly, “what hast thou done?”   (John 18:35), Jesus becomes his own lawyer again and says: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom  not from hence” (John 18:36). Basically  saying: “You don’t have to worry about me. I will not try to overthrow Rome with zealotry.  My teaching is only spiritual in nature.” After these words, Pilate goes to the angry mob outside and declares, “I find in him no fault at all” (John 18:38).

Consider the phrases, “he is brought as a lamb led to the slaughter” and  “he was cut off out of the land of the living.”   These words were fulfilled in the person of the Hebrew Prophet  Jeremiah, not Jesus. In Jeremiah 11:19 we are told: “But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter. I did not know it was  against me they devised schemes, saying, ‘Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name be remembered no  more’”  (RSV). Jeremiah was rejected and afflicted by his  people after warning them of the terrible Babylonian punishment on the horizon. He was mocked, ridiculed, spat on, flogged, imprisoned, and eventually killed for his trouble. It was not for his  people’s sins that Jeremiah was  made to suffer, but rather  because of their sins – they  simply would not believe in him. Many scholars believe that either chapter 53 was written by the prophet Isaiah himself or by some other contemporary who prophesized the ministry of Jeremiah, or that it was actually written in retrospect after Jeremiah’s death by a Jewish scribe living in Babylon. Either way, it is definitely not a reference to Jesus Christ.

The Jews interpret Isaiah 53 to be a reference to Israel as a whole since many times in the book of Isaiah (chapter 42), Psalms, and elsewhere in the Old Testament God does in fact refer to Israel as “My servant.” The problem with this is the fact that Israel simply  does not fit the description. Besides, how can this be a reference to Israel when Israel itself is doing the talking? Consider the phrases: “But he [was] wounded for our  transgressions… and with his stripes we are healed.” 

Forsaken by disciples

Zechariah 13:7 reads: “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my  fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I  will turn mine hand upon the little ones.” Both Mark and Matthew tell us that at the most critical juncture in the life of Jesus, “all of his disciples forsook him and fled” (Mark 14:50; Matthew 26:56). When Muslims try to point out that all of Jesus’ disciples deserted him and did not witness what had happened at Calvary, Christians retort that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was there and even stood at the foot of the cross (John 19:26). Just as John invented the impaling incident to prove Jesus’ death, he also places a disciple at the crucifixion thus contradicting the synoptics which mention that all  of his disciples left him in the lurch. John also mentions that two “secret disciples,” Joseph of  Arimathaea and Nicodemus removed Jesus’ body from the cross. It’s unfortunate that we don’t have first hand accounts from either of these two men as  to what they noticed about Jesus’ “dead” body.

Peter did “follow at a distance,” but before Jesus’ trial even began, “he went out, and wept bitterly,” and is not mentioned again until Easter Sunday. Therefore, he was not present at the cross. Ask your Christian friend why the synoptics maintain that all of Jesus disciples forsook him and fled when “the disciple whom Jesus loved” and two secret disciples stayed put? Either the synoptics are wrong or John is mistaken.

Psalm 22

David says: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my  roaring?… For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me:  they pierced my hands and my  feet…They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon  my vesture” (Psalm 22:1,16,18). This is obviously nothing more than the evangelists’ attempts to  legitimize the death of the  Messiah, but yet again, there is no mention whatsoever that this is referring to God’s Anointed. The evangelists have borrowed freely  from the Old Testament in order to get their theological doctrine across, but when the Qur’an  confirms a story or an event found within l the Hebrew Bible, the Christians call Muhammad a forger!

Psalm 34

Christians believe that John 19:33-36 fulfills Psalms 34:20 where it states: “He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.” This is taken viciously  out of context. Let’s look at the  three preceding verses: “The righteous cry,  and the Lord heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. The Lord [is]  nigh unto them that are of a  broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. Many [are]  the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all” (Psalms 34:17-19). Notice the word “all” mentioned twice in this passage. God will deliver those who call upon Him  from all of their troubles and  afflictions. Does this verse really  find its fulfillment in the Christian Jesus who was apparently beaten beyond recognition, pricked by  thorns, scourged mercilessly, and had stakes driven through his hands and feet? But God “delivered” him by not braking any of his bones? Ridiculous!

The Real Messianic Prophecies

Psalm 91 – “He shall deliver thee”

According to the New Testament, Psalm  91 is a confirmed  messianic prophecy which states that God will deliver his Messiah from  all harm. When Jesus was in the desert preparing for his  ministry, Satan tells him: “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they  shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy  foot against a stone”  (Matthew 4:6; Also see Luke 4:11). Christians may take exception to the fact that Satan  mentions this passage, but that point is irrelevant. The critical issue is that this prophecy was believed to be referring to the Messiah by all of the Jews in Jesus’ day and even until this day. Satan reminds him of the passage from the Hebrew Bible yet Jesus does not offer to correct Satan by saying something to the effect of, “That does not apply to me.” Jesus rather replies: “It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God”  (Matthew 4:7). Therefore, while Satan is correct about relating this prophecy to  Jesus, he has no right to demand anything from God for his own amusement. Notice how Jesus also uses the phrase “it is written” to rebut the tempting of the Evil One. In essence he is saying: “I am the ‘Son of God’ (Messiah), and am fully aware what God has said  about me. But did you forget that it is forbidden to tempt Him?”

“He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, [He is] my refuge and my  fortress: my God; in him will I  trust. Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, [and] from the noisome  pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth [shall be thy] shield and buckler. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; [nor] for the arrow [that] flieth by day; [Nor]  for the pestilence [that] walketh  in darkness; [nor] for the destruction [that] wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy  right hand; [but] it shall not come nigh thee. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked. Because thou hast made the Lord, [which is]  my refuge, [even] the most  High, thy habitation; There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. For he shall  give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in [their] hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a  stone. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and  the dragon shalt thou trample under feet. Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I [will  be] with him in trouble;  I will deliver him, and honour him. With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.”   Psalm 91.

Compare “they shall bear thee up in their hands” to “God raised him up unto Himself”  (Qur’an 4:158).

Psalm 20

King David writes: “We will rejoice in thy salvation, and in the name of our God we will set up [our]  banners: the Lord fulfil all thy petitions. Now know I that the Lord saveth his Anointed; he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand. Some [trust] in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God”  (Psalm 20:5-7).

Verse 6 transliterated reads:  At-tah yadha-tiki hoshiya adonai  meshicho, anehu mishemey qodsho bighb-huroth yesha yemeeno.  There is no ambiguity  here whatsoever. The words for “saveth,” and “anointed” are  hoshiya and Meshicho  respectively. The Meshicho, or rather Messiah, is the Christ. Can it be any more clear: God saves His Messiah! The majority of Christians believe Jesus’ true name to be Yeshua, a name that  has exactly the same etymological root meaning and significance as the word hoshiya in verse 6. The  root word being  yasha, “to save.” According to the Strongs’ Concordance, Yeshua means “he is saved,” not Savior.

Hoshiya: 1) to save, be saved, be delivered.
a) to be liberated, be saved, be delivered
b) to be saved (in battle), be victorious
c) to save, deliver
d) to save from moral troubles
e) to give victory to

Christians are quick to quote Psalm 22 or 34 and claim that they are foretelling the death of the Messiah when there is no specific reference to him at all. Yet when he is mentioned specifically in Psalm 20 and other passages presented below as being saved by God, Christians suddenly become ignorant!

Psalm 18

Replace the  word “Anointed” with Messiah or Christ: “He delivereth  me from mine enemies: yea, thou liftest me up above those that rise up against me: thou hast delivered me from the violent  man. Therefore will I give thanks  unto thee, O Lord, among the heathen, and sing praises unto thy name. Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and showeth mercy to his Anointed, to David, and to his seed for evermore” (Psalm 18:48-50). Again we have a very specific  messianic prophecy of the saving of God’s Anointed which  matches exactly with what the Qur’an says happened to Jesus yet Christians remain deluded!

Psalm 28

“Blessed [be] the Lord, because he hath heard the voice of my  supplications. The Lord [is] my  strength and my shield; my heart trusted in him, and I am helped: therefore my heart greatly rejoiceth; and with my song will I praise him. The Lord [is] their strength, and he [is] the saving strength of his Anointed  (Messiah)”  (Psalms 28:6-8).

Psalm 105

“When they went from one nation to another, from  [one]  kingdom to another people; He suffered no man to do them  wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; [Saying], Touch not mine Anointed (Christ), and do my prophets no harm”  (Psalm 105:13-15).

The Anointed are Always Saved

According to the Old Testament, priests would consecrate as king a prophet or prince by anointing the latter’s head with oil from the sacred tabernacle. The people who witnessed this event would then shout, “God save the king  (messiah)!” Certainly Solomon was a king, a great and wise king, but he was not the King. That office belonged to only one person, the Christ of God who is Jesus (upon whom be peace). If God saved his lesser messiahs from harm, then how much more  would He protect His true Messiah?

•  “And Zadok the priest took a horn of oil out of the tabernacle,  and anointed (mashach) Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.”  – I Kings 1:39.

•  “And he brought forth the king’s son, and put the crown upon him, and [gave him] the testimony; and they made him king, and anointed (mashach) him; and they clapped their hands, and said, God save the king.” – II Kings 11:12.

• “Then they brought out the king’s son, and put upon him the crown, and [gave him] the  testimony, and made him king. And Jehoiada and his sons anointed (mashach) him, and said, God save the king.”  – II Chronicles 23:11.

The Substitution Theory

The Substitution Theory states that someone else who resembled or was made to resemble Jesus  was nailed to the cross and crucified while Jesus himself remained totally unharmed. This is the more widely accepted theory among Muslim scholars and as already noted, confirms Jewish expectations of the Messiah. Stress again to your Christian friend that this is only a possibility and that God alone knows how this was actually accomplished.

Unlike the Swoon Theory, the Substitution Theory is much  more difficult to prove from a  Biblical standpoint, but like the Swoon Theory’s Sign of Jonas, the Gospels unintentionally provide us with a 500-lb. sledgehammer to use against the Christian crucifixion advances. Although not specifically  mentioned in the synoptic Gospels, Christians believe that Jesus, after his six or so trials, sleep deprivation, and numerous beatings, was so weak that he could not even carry the wooden cross bar to his own execution. The question of exactly why  Jesus did not carry his own cross  remains a mystery. We do know from the Gospels, however, that a man known as Simon of Cyrene  played an extremely interesting role during those Friday  proceedings almost 2,000 years ago…

•  Matthew 27:32 – “And as they  came out, they found a man of  Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.” 

•  Mark 15:21  – “And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander  and Rufus, to bear his cross.” 

•  Luke 23:26  – “And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear [it] after Jesus.” 

Who is this man Simon of Cyrene? The Gospels do not mention him  prior to or after the crucifixion. Could it be that  Simon was seized by the Romans during the riotous atmosphere and crucified instead of Jesus? His son, Alexander, is mentioned twice by Paul using extremely  harsh language: “Alexander the  coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works” (II Timothy  4:14); “Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme”  (I Timothy  1:20). If this is the same  Alexander bar Shimon, then why  does Paul despise him so much?  Perhaps Alexander opposed Paul’s paradoxical doctrine of the murdered Messiah by claiming that his father was killed in Jesus’  place. Using Mark as their primary source, both Matthew and Luke prefer not to mention the sons of Simon for reasons that remain unknown. Amazingly, John makes absolutely no mention of Simon at all! He tells us: “And he (Jesus) bearing his own cross went forth into a place called [the place] of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha” (John 19:17).  Who is lying, John or the synoptic evangelists?

Stress again to your Christian friend that the intention behind the writing of John’s Gospel by  the Johannine community was to tie up the many loose ends of the Jesus event. The ambiguous divinity of Christ, his mysterious death on the cross, and his unsettling “no show” second coming are problem areas that  John attempts to address and resolve. As already  stated, John invents an impaling of Jesus on the cross as well as contradicts the synoptics by claiming that Jesus was anointed by his secret disciples the very night of his “death” and that a disciple was present at the crucifixion. Now he goes a step further and says that Jesus bore his own cross to Golgotha to give us the assurance that he, and not Simon, was the one actually killed.

John’s highly mystical  Christology seems to be in response to some of the Gnostic  elements found amongst the Christian communities of the first century. Harris says (emphasis  Harris’): “One branch of Gnosticism, called Docetism (a name taken from the Greek verb ‘to seem’) argued that Christ, being good, could not also be human; he only seemed to have a physical body. The Docetists contended that as God’s true son, Christ was wholly spiritual, ascending to heaven while leaving another’s body on the cross” (page 194). Although we as Muslims cannot totally agree with this statement, we can certainly  appreciate its testimony that there were in fact many divergent early Christian opinions with regards to the so-called crucifixion.

The Johannine community  declares: “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is  come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already  is it in the world” (I John 4:2-3). The Fourth Gospel and three epistles of John eventually defined what became the official church view of Jesus’ dual nature. But is it this simple? If a spirit confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh he is of God? Mark tells us that unclean demonic spirits declared to Jesus: “I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24); “Thou art the Son of God” (Mark 3:11); “What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not” (Mark 5:7). Are these spirits of God?

Abdullah Yusuf Ali states in his commentary to the Holy Qur’an (page 236, note 663):

The end of the life of Jesus on  earth is as much involved in  mystery as his birth, and indeed  the greater part of his private life, except the three main years of his ministry. It is not profitable to discuss the many doubts and conjectures among the early Christian sects and among Muslim theologians. The Orthodox Christian Churches make it a cardinal point in their doctrine that his life was taken on the Cross, that he died and was buried, that on the third day he  rose in the body with his wounds intact, and walked about and conversed, and ate with his  disciples, and was afterward taken up bodily to  heaven. This is necessary for the theological  doctrine of blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins, which is rejected by Islam. But some of the early Christian sects did not believe that Christ was killed on the Cross. The Basilidans believed that someone else was  substituted for him. The Docetae held that Christ never had a real physical or natural body, but only  an apparent or phantom body, and that his Crucifixion was merely apparent, not real. The  Marcionite Gospel (about A.C. 138) denied that Jesus was born, and merely said that he appeared in human form. The Gospel of St. Barnabas supported the theory of substitution on the Cross. The Qur’anic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed  by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some of his enemies; that  disputations, doubts,  and conjectures on such matters are vain; and that he was taken up to Allah.

 

Daniel 9 from Jewish Perspective

Daniel 9 – A True Biblical Interpretation

From : https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/answers/jewish-polemics/texts/daniel-9-a-true-biblical-interpretation/

The book of Daniel is filled with Messianic illusions and calculations that even left Daniel pondering their meanings. Additionally, a large proportion of the book is written in Aramaic rather than the traditional Hebrew adding to the complexity of these biblical texts.

The ninth chapter has been of particular interest to both Jews and Christians.

The message of a merciful God communicated in verse 18, “for not because of our righteousness do we pour out supplications before You, but because of Your great compassion.” has been a foundation of a Jews personal and spiritual relationship with God.

Christians, on the other hand, tend to focus on verses 24 -26. The following is the Christian translation of those verses:

24) Seventy weeks are determined upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25)”Know therefore and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again with plaza and moat but in troubled times.
26) Then after sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off but not for himself and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

Many Christians assert that these passages are a prophecy that predicts the exact dates that the Messiah will come and also die. They believe that Jesus fulfilled these predictions.

Before examining these verses it is important to point out that: 1) Based on the Hebrew original and context, Jews have very valid reasons for rejecting the Christian interpretation and 2) the New Testament authors never quote these passages and calculations as a proof-text.

To understand this chapter, we must begin with an explanation of the term “weeks.”

Daniel chapter 9 uses the Hebrew word (שבעים ~ Shavuim) to represents a period of time multiplied by seven. For various reasons this word is translated as “weeks” and means a multiple of seven years rather than a multiple of seven days.

a) We see a similar use in the verse, “You shall count~ שבע שבתת השנים) seven Shabbaths of years), seven years seven times… forty-nine years.” Leviticus 25:8
b) A Shabbath is a period of seven days and shares the same Hebrew root for the word
(שבועה~Shavuah) that means “week”.
c) Normally the plural of week would be (שבעות ~ Shavuot) in Daniel it uses the masculine “ים” ending for ( שבעים~ Shavuim) similar to (years ~ שנים) This indicates that (שבעים~ Shavuim) is referring to a multiple of seven years
d) Both Jews and Christian agree that this is referring to a multiple of years.

Therefore in Daniel chapter 9, each week is a period of seven years.

Christian polemicists interpret these passages in the following way. These passages are being spoken by Daniel after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the evil Babylonian empire. At some point after the destruction, there will be a “decree” issued to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Starting from the issuing of that decree, 7 and 62 weeks totaling 69 weeks of years (483 years), will pass and then the Messiah will come and in that same seven year period “week” he will be cut off, but not for himself, but for the sins of mankind. Then the city and sanctuary will be destroyed. Christian assert that their calculation proves that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy to the exact day.

After the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, any Jews that survived the Babylonian slaughter were exiled from their land. Daniel, for example, lived in Babylon. Eventually, the Babylonians were conquered by the Persian Empire.

Christians claim that the decree mentioned in Daniel 9:25 was issued by the Persian King Artaxerxes in the year 444 BCE, based on Nehemiah 2:1-8. These passages speak about the king giving Nehemiah “letters” (אגרות ~ Iggrot) for safe passage and permission to rebuild the Temple.

The building of Jerusalem was started and halted several times, and there are three additional decrees mentioned earlier in the Bible.
1) In Ezra 1:1-4, King Cyrus issues a proclamation (קול ~ Kol) and writings (מכתב ~ Michtav) granting the Jews permission to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.
2) Ezra 6:12-13, King Darius issues a decree (טעם ~Taam) granting permission to rebuilt the Temple.
3) Ezra 7:11-16, Artaxerxex, issues a decree (טעם ~Taam) granting permission to rebuilt the Temple. (Artaxerxex is a Persian title of royalty and can refer to different leaders. This is similar to the way Pharaoh is the title of rulers of Egypt)

We will see latter that it is significant that in these verses there are four different words used to describe these proclamations, and none of them match the Hebrew word used in Daniel 9 which is (דבר ~ Devar) that means “word.”

With four different proclamations, there is no historical justification to choose the one mentioned in Nehemiah 2 and there is no reliable source stating that it occurred exactly in 444 BCE. It seems that Christian picked this passage out of convenience and assigned it this specific date, because if you start at 444 BCE and count 69 weeks of years (483 years) you reach 39 CE. Whatever their reason for choosing Nehemiah’s reference and attributing it as having occurred in 444 BCE it is still seven years off from the year 32 CE when Jesus supposedly died.

This seven-year discrepancy is resolved by Christian theologians who redefined the definition of a “year.” They claim that prophecies like Daniel’s are to be understood in “Prophetic years” that have 360 days rather than 365 ¼ days. The argument that Daniel might be speaking to Babylonians who may have had a 360 year is unsubstantiated and refuted by the fact that this particular passage is spoken in Hebrew to Jews who had a different calendar then and Babylonians who spoke Aramaic.

One Christian attempt to prove this concept of Prophetic years is from the New Testament:

“They will tread underfoot the holy city for 42 months, and they will prophesy for 1260 days.” Revelations 11:2-3

By dividing 1260 (days) by 42 (months) you get 30 days per month, they claim that each month is 30 days and a Prophetic Biblical year would therefore be being 360 days (30×12=360).

An additional proof-text utilizes the events surrounding the flood. The following verses are quoted to show how biblical months were periods of 30 days,

“the water prevailed upon the earth 150 days” Gen 7:24 and

the flood started on,

“the 17th day of the second month” Gen 7:11, and ended on,

“the 17th day of the seventh month.” Gen 8:4.

They argue that by taking this exact five month period and dividing it into the150 days, you will see that there must be five months of 30 days each and therefore a year would be 360 days.

The Christian argument continues that the difference between a solar year of 365 ¼ days and the so-called prophetic year of 360 days is what caused the seven-year discrepancy in their interpretation of Daniel 9, and the resolution of the problem is accomplished by converting the time period from “biblical” years to solar years.

They argue that that by multiplying 360 days by 483 years (69 weeks of years) you get 173,880 prophetic days. To convert this to solar years, you divide the 173,880 days by 365 1/4 (days), and you will get 476 years. 444 BCE plus 476 years will give you the year 32 CE, which they claim is the year that Jesus not only made his triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Messiah’s arrival) but was also crucified (cut off ).

Before explaining why this line of reasoning is absolutely false and a simply an act of desperation to resolve their 7year miscalculation, we must explore the correct meaning of Daniel 9 and the concept of a Jewish calendar year.

TRANSLATING DANIEL CORRECTLY

It is essential to a correct understanding of Daniel 9, to point out that it is incorrect to read this passage as if it were speaking about the Messiah.

This may appear obvious to Christians since their translations has the word “Messiah” mentioned twice in this chapter; however this is the result of a blatant and intentional mistranslation of the Hebrew word (משיח ~ Moshiach”).

This word literally means “anointed” and is an adjective as in the 1 Samuel 10:1-2 where the word clearly means an act of consecration. It is not a personal pronoun that refers to a particular individual called “The Messiah.” The word (משיח ~ Moshiach”) is used throughout Jewish Scriptures no less than 100 times and refers to a variety of individuals and objects. For example:

Priests: Leviticus 4:3
Kings: 1 Kings 1:39
Prophets: Isaiah 61:1
Temple Alter: Exodus 40:9-11
Matzot ~ Unleavened Bread: Numbers 6:15
Cyrus ~ a non-Jewish Persian King: Isaiah 45:1

Even in Christian translations the word Moshiach is translated 99% of the time as “anointed.” The only exception is twice in Daniel 9 verses 25 and 26. This inconsistency is even more blatant since Christian translators translate the word (משיח ~ Moshiach) as “anointed” one verse earlier when it is used in Daniel 9:24. In this instance, it is referring to anointing the innermost chamber of the Holy Temple known as the “Holy of Holies,” (קדשים קדש ~ Kodesh Kedoshim). It is incorrect to translate this, as some missionaries do, to mean the “most holy one” in an attempt to have this refer to the Messiah rather than a place.

Therefore, in Daniel, the passages should be correctly translated as:

Daniel 9:24 “Until an anointed prince” and not as “Until Messiah he prince.”

Daniel 9:25. “an anointed one will be cut off” and not as “the Messiah will be cut off.”

Additionally, in verse 25 there is no definite article (Hey ~ ה) before the word (משיח ~ Moshiach), and it is incorrect to translate this as “the Messiah” or “the anointed one” as if it were speaking about one exclusive individual. When translating correctly as an “anointed individual,7” the passages could be referring any one of a number of different individuals or objects that were anointed and not necessarily “the Messiah.”

A careful examination of Daniel 9 will lead to a clear understand of exactly to whom and what this chapter is referring.

An additional mistake made by Christians is the translation of 7 and 62 weeks as one undivided unity of 69 weeks. The Christian version makes it sound as if the arrival and “cutting off” of the “Messiah” will take place sixty-nine weeks (483 years) after a decree to restore Jerusalem. They add the 7 and 62 weeks together and have one person (the Messiah) and two events occurring towards the end of the 69th week.

Actually, according to the Hebrew the 7 and 62 weeks are two separate and distinct periods. One event happens after seven weeks and another event after an additional 62 weeks.

Simply put, if you wanted to say 69 in Hebrew you would say “sixty and nine.” You would not say “seven and sixty two.”

Furthermore, in Daniel it is written “7 weeks and 62 weeks rather than “7 and 62 weeks.” The use of the word “weeks” after each number also shows that they are separate events. The use of the definite article (ה ~ Hey) that means “the” in verse 26, “and after the 62 weeks shall an anointed one be cut off,” is sometimes deleted in Christian translations, but it’s presence in the Hebrew original clearly indicates that the 62 weeks is to be treated as separate period of time from the original 7 weeks.

The correct translation should be:

“ until an anointed prince shall be 7 weeks (49 years),” “then for 62 weeks (434 years) it (Jerusalem) will be built again but in troubled times.” Then after (those) the 62 weeks shall an anointed one will be cut off.” Daniel 9:24-25

Two separate events and anointed ones, 62 weeks (434 years) apart.

Christians also incorrectly translated the Hebrew (V’ayn Lo ~ לו ואין), at the end of Daniel 9:26. They translate it that he will be cut off “but not for himself,” as if it refers to someone being cut off not for himself but cut off for us and indicating a form of vicarious attainment. However the Hebrew original means “and he will be no more” literally “and no more of him” and indicates the finality of his demise. Interestingly the Hebrew word (kares ~ כרת) translated as “cut off” biblically refers to someone who has sinned so grievously that they are put to death by heavenly decree as a divine punishment for their own transgressions.

An awareness of these eight mistranslations is essential to understanding the ninth chapter of Daniel. To recap:

1. (קדשים קדש) mean “holy of holies” not the “most holy one”
2. (דבר ~ Devar) that means “word” not decree.
3. (משיח ~ Moshiach”) means “anointed” not “Messiah” verse 23
4. (משיח ~ Moshiach”) means “anointed” not “Messiah” verse 24
5. “seven weeks and sixty-two ” means two events one at 7 weeks and the other 62 weeks later not one event after a cumulative 69 weeks
6. (Hey ~ ה) mean “the”
7. (V’ayn Lo ~ לו ואין) mean “will be no more” not “not for himself”
8. (kares ~ כרת) means death to a transgressor the cuts off their relationship to God.

JEWISH CALANDER YEARS

In addition to theses these eight mistranslations Christians, as mentioned above, manipulate their calculation of the 69 weeks in Daniel 9 in an attempt to have them coincide with the arrival and death of Jesus in Jerusalem.

Christians based their understand with a belief that the starting point of the prophesy begins in 444 BCE with the decree issued by King Artaxerxex (Ezra 7:ll-16). Sixty–nine weeks (483 years) would bring you to 39 CE. This is 7 years off the commonly accepted date of 32 CE being the year Jesus was put to death. As mentioned above they attempt to resolve this issue by transforming “prophetic years” into solar years. The problem is that according to Jewish tradition and scriptures there is no such thing as a prophetic year of 360 days.

Jewish scripture clearly teaches that the Jewish calendar is both Solar and Lunar. As early as Genesis 1:14, that deals with the creation of the sun and the moon, we are told that “Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years” Both luminaries are used to determine our calendar.

A solar year is 365 1/4 days and a lunar year is 11 days shorter, 354 days long. Unlike the Gentile’s year where the length of the months is set by convention rather than a relationship to the lunar calendar, a Biblical Jewish calendar must coincide with both the sun (for seasons) and the moon. When God, commanded the people of Israel to sanctify the months he established the month that the Exodus took place as the first of the months. Exodus 12:1. God also commanded to observe Passover in the springtime as is says,

“Observe the month of springtime and perform the Passover for God, for in the month on springtime God took you out of Egypt.” Deut 16:1.

In other words, a biblical calendar must coincide the months with the seasons creating a Solar- Lunar calendar.

There is an eleven day difference between a solar and lunar year. If Jewish holidays were established solely by a lunar year the holidays would move further and further away from their original seasons. This happens all the time with the Muslim Lunar calendar with Ramadan falling in a variety of seasons. A biblical Solar/Lunar calendar corrects this by adding a 13 month leap year approximately every 4 years. Some years have 12 months and the leap year has 13. The fabricated “prophetic year” of 360 days could not exist because it would not allow Jewish holidays to coincide with both months and seasons.

UNDERSTANDING DANIEL

Now we can return to the beginning of Daniel 9 and establish the correct starting point for Daniel’s prophesy.

The Christian major error in establishing the starting point of Daniel prophesy is caused by their mistranslation of the verse, “know therefore and discern that from the going forth of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” Daniel 9:25

Since their translation asserts that the starting point of this prophesy is from the issuing of a certain decree to rebuild Jerusalem, they incorrectly assume that it is the decree of King Artaxerxex. However, as mentioned above, there were a number of different decrees made concerning returning and rebuilding Jerusalem.

In Daniel 9:25 the original Hebrew used the word (דבר ~ Devar) which is significantly different from a human decree. The word (דבר ~ Devar) refers to a prophetic word. In the beginning of Daniel 9 verse 2, this word is used when Daniel says that he wants to understand “the word of the Lord to the Prophet Jeremiah.”

As mentioned above, in all of the passages that mention some form of decree or proclamation concerning Jerusalem, none of them use the Hebrew word (דבר ~ Devar).

The correct translation of Daniel should be:

“Know therefore and discern that from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” Daniel 9:25

Therefore the correct starting point of Daniel’s prophesy must be associated with the issuing of a prophetic word and not a human decree.

The word (דבר ~ Devar) is used in the beginning of Daniel chapter 9. A careful reading of the beginning of this chapter clarifies the correct meaning of the reference to the “word to restore and to build Jerusalem” mentioned in Daniel 9:25.

Chapter 9 begins as follow:

“I Daniel considered (or contemplated) in the books the number of the years which the word (דבר ~ Devar) of G-d came to Jeremiah the Prophet that would accomplish to the destruction of Jerusalem” Daniel 9:2

Here Daniel uses the word (דבר ~ Devar) when pondering the numbers of years that Jeremiah had spoken about. Jeremiah had twice prophesied concerning a 70 year period.

Once Jeremiah said:

“and these nation shall serve the King of Babylon 70 years and it shall come to pass when seventy years are accomplished that I will punish the King of Babylon and that nation … and make it everlasting desolation” Jeremiah 25: 11-12

This prophesy states that Babylon would dominate Israel for a total of 70 years.

Jeremiah also says:

“After 70 years are accomplished to Babylon I will take heed of you and perform My good word towards you in causing you to return to this place.” Jeremiah 29:l0

This prophesy states, that after the 70 years, in addition to the end of Babylonian domination, the Jews would also return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian exile.

There are two Jeremiah prophesies concerning: 1) subjugation, and 2) return to Jerusalem.

Jeremiah’s 70 years start from the initial subjugation of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. This took place 18 years before the destruction of Jerusalem, as demonstrated by the following passages,

We know that the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. As it says:

“In the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan the chief executioner was in service of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem… and destroyed the Temple of God” Jeremiah 52:12-13

The 19th year means that 18 full years had already been completed. Nebuchadnezzar started to subjugate Jerusalem in his first year of his rule; this can be derived from the following verses;

“in King Yehoyakim’s third year (three completed years) Nebuchadnezzar came to besiege Jerusalem” Daniel 1:1

“in the fourth year (three completed years) of Yehoyakim which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar” Jeremiah 25:1

These verses demonstrate that Nebuchadnezzar started to besiege Jerusalem in his first year and the destruction of Jerusalem took place in his “19th” year. Therefore, 18 complete years had passed from the beginning of the siege until the destruction of Jerusalem. During these 18 years Jerusalem was laid siege and completely surrounded.

Scriptures also indicate that the 70 years of Jeremiah were completed with the advent of Cyrus the King of the Persian Empire. As it says:

“Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled.” Ezra 1:1-3

“Those who survived the sword he exiled to Babylon, where they became slaves to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign. This was the fulfillment of the word of God to Jeremiah, until the land would be appeased of its Sabbatical years, all the years of its desolation it rested, to the completion of 70 years. In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, upon the expiration of God’s prophesy spoken by Jeremiah. God aroused the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia and he issues a proclamation… to build God a Temple in Jerusalem.” 2 Chronicles 36:20-23

In addition to the Babylonian rule ended in fulfillment of Jeremiah 25:11-12, Cyrus also gave permission, in fulfillment of Jeremiah 29:l0, to the Jews to return to Jerusalem, as it says;

“Whoever is among you all his people, let his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord G-d of Israel.” Ezra 1:4

It is important to remember that from the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, 18 years before the fall of Jerusalem, until the fall of the Babylonian Empire, when Cyrus came into power, 70 years had elapsed. By subtracting the 18 years subjugation before the destruction of the first Temple from the total of 70 years we are left with 52 years. This proves that King Cyrus arose to power and fulfilled Jeremiah’s prophesy 52 years after the destruction of Jerusalem.

This plays an essential role in understanding Daniel 9. Daniel yearned not only for the Babylonian Empire to cease 70 years after the subjugation of Jerusalem; he yearned to see the return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple.

When Daniel begins speaking in chapter 9 it is in the first year of Darius the Median. This Darius is mentioned earlier in Daniel 6:1 and called the Mede so that he would not be confused with Darius son of Achasverous the Persian, who was born later during the days of Haman and Esther.

Daniel was confused because although he now witnessed that, with the advent of Darius the 70 years to the Babylonian subjugation were over in fulfillment of Jeremiah 25:11-12, Daniel had not yet seen the fulfillment of Jeremiah 29:10 that promised that after the 70 years the Jewish exiles would return and rebuild Jerusalem. He did not foresee that very shortly Cyrus world rule and fulfill this promise.

Daniel thought that perhaps, due to the sins of Israel the date had been delayed. This is why Daniel confesses for the sins of the people in verse 4-20 and says.

“Now I was still speaking and praying and confessing my sins and the sins of my people Israel and casting my supplications before the Lord My God about the holy mountain (the Sanctuary as seen in Isaiah 56:7) of my God.” Daniel 9:20

This explains why at the beginning of chapter 9 Daniel contemplated the number of years to the destruction of Jerusalem and not to the subjugation, as it says.

“I Daniel contemplated the calculations, the number of years about that which the word of God came to the prophet Jeremiah, to complete the 70 years to the destruction (לחרבות ~ L’Charvot) of Jerusalem.” Daniel 9:2

Daniel saw that the subjugation was over but he no only wanted to see the return to Jerusalem he wanted to know when the destruction would end with the building of the second Temple.

In fact, after one year of rule by Darius, King Cyrus took power and fulfilled Jeremiah 29 and allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem. But Daniel’s desire to understand the years of Jeremiah to the destruction of Jerusalem, result in the revelation of a new and additional understanding of Jeremiah:

There are now three different prophesies concerning 70 years.

1) 70 years of subjugation (Jeremiah 25)
2) 70 years till they return to the Jerusalem (Jeremiah 29)
3) 70 years of the destruction of Jerusalem (Daniel 9).

Whereas the calculations of the first two begin with the subjugation of Jerusalem 18 years before its destruction, Daniel’s new insight into the 70 years of total destruction must be calculated from a different starting point, the date that Jerusalem was destroyed. In fact, starting from the destruction of the first Temple until the completion of the building of second Temple was exactly 70 years.

As a result of Daniel’s praying, confessing and contemplating about the years to the destruction of Jerusalem, the angel Gabriel (verse 21), revealed to him and expanded prophesy of 70 weeks (490 years).

The starting point of this prophesy “that from the going of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” Daniel 9:25, also begins from the Destruction of the First Temple.

The use of the Hebrew word (דבר ~ Devar) in both Daniel 9:25 and Daniel 9:2 also establishes that they share the same beginning point, the destruction of Jerusalem.

Starting from the destruction of Jerusalem we can now see the meaning of Daniel 9:24-26. From the Prophetic word (דבר ~ Devar) that refers to the destruction of the first Temple until an anointed Prince (the Hebrew (נגיד ~ nagid) is correctly translated as Leader), will be seven weeks (49 years). As demonstrated earlier, from the destruction of Jerusalem until Cyrus was 52 years, this is within the 7th week (49 years and before the 8th weeks 56 years).

Cyrus not only initiated the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 1:1-3, Ezra 5:13, Ezra 6:3 and Isaiah 44:28), he is also called and identified as God’s anointed, as it says,

“Thus says the Lord to His anointed, Cyrus” Isaiah 45:1

Remember there are two anointed subjects, one after seven weeks and another after an additional 62 weeks.

The first “anointed” individual identified as a prince/leader in Daniel 9:25 is King Cyrus, who came seven weeks of years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Then from Cyrus’ Decree to rebuild Jerusalem, “it will be built again” for an additional 62 weeks (434 years). But “in troubled times,” Daniel 9:25, meaning under the foreign domination of the subsequent Persian, Greek and Roman rule. The Greek is mentioned in Daniel 11:2 and Roman alluded to in Daniel 1:30 where the word (כתים ~ Kittim) refers to the Roman capital of Constantinople)

Then in the 69th week (483 years) after the destruction of the first Temple and one week (7 years) before the destruction of the second Temple, an anointed one is cut off.

The fact that there is no definite article indicates that this can refer to several different anointed subjects. King Agrippa the last King of Israel (Kings are considered anointed as it says in 1 Chronicles 11:3) who was killed during this time. It also refers to the last High Priest (priests are anointed as seen in Leviticus 4) and the sacrifices (indicated in Leviticus 8:10-11). All three subjects were considered anointed and were cut off during the final week before the destruction of the second Temple.

“The people of the prince will come and destroy the city and the Sanctuary” Daniel 9:26,

refers to the Roman legions of Vespasian and Titus, who destroyed Jerusalem.

Additionally, the sacrificial system (that was anointed) ceased during this last week before the completion of the total 70 weeks of 490 years, as it says, “

“during half of week he will abolish sacrifice and meal-offerings” Daniel 9:27

Historically during the years before the destruction of the second Temple the Romans set up idolatry in the Temple fulfilling the final verse in Daniel 9 that says;

“upon wings of abomination shall come one who make desolate until the decreed destruction is poured out desolator” Daniel 9:27

The Romans, who are often symbolized by the Eagle Wings resting on their standards, would desecrate the Temple with idolatry; destroy the Temple that would remain desolate until the Roman exile is finished with the advent of the true Messianic age of complete peace, tranquility and knowledge of God. Today’s exile is considered an extension of the Roman exile that has lasted more than 2,000 years.

In Daniel 9 the original 70 years are from the destruction of the first Temple until the building of the second. If they had returned whole-heartedly, there would have been no need for the second Temple to be destroyed, and the events listed verse 24 would have been fulfilled.

“Seventy weeks (490 years) are determined upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity(atone for their past transgressions), and to bring in everlasting righteousness (Temple service that brings righteousness), and to seal up the vision and prophecy (fulfill the promises of the prophets and end the prophetic era) and, and to anoint the Holy of Holies (the Temple)” Daniel 9:24

The angel Gabriel reveals to Daniel this additional understanding of the 70 years extending them from 70 years to 70 weeks of years stretching the time span to 490 years that span from the destruction of the first Temple to the Destruction of the second Temple. This prophesy also included a description of events that would unfold if the Jewish people did not repent properly.

These are the 70 years for the first exile (52 years until Cyrus and 18 additional years to dedicate the second Temple) and 420 years of the second Temple.

Although there appears to be a discrepancy in chronology between the Jewish and secular Gregorian calendars of 166 years (with the secular dates earlier) it is clear that Jewish record keeping is more reliable and consistent concerning these events. Babylonian calendars changed arbitrarily with every new Babylonian king and limited archeological discoveries often reflect their arbitrary chronology. (According to secular chronology 586 BCE is the year incorrectly associated with the destruction of the first Temple the Jewish)

This is how Daniel 9:24-26 should be correctly translated and understood:

24) Seventy weeks (490 years) are determined upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.”
25) Know therefore and discern that from the issuing of a word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (starting from its destruction) until an anointed Prince (Cyrus) will be seven weeks (49 years) and then for sixty-two weeks (434 years) it will be built again with plaza and moat but in troubled times. (Persian, Greek and Roman domination)
26) Then after the sixty-two weeks (483 years from the destruction of the first Temple) an anointed one (sacrifices, last Jewish priest and king) will be cut off and will be no more, and the people of the prince (Romans) who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. (in the 70th week 490 years from the destruction of the first Temple)

This is a brief explanation of Daniel chapter 9. Any attempt to apply this chapter to Jesus is erroneous and wrought with mistranslations and misinterpretations.

====================================

Christians Perspective :

http://endtimepilgrim.org/70wks3.htm

 

 

“The Commandment to Restore and to Build Jerusalem”

“The Commandment to Restore and to Build Jerusalem”

http://www.patmospapers.com/daniel/457.htm

Four different decrees have been considered as the possible application of this prophecy.

1. The decree of Cyrus recorded in Ezra 1:1-4.

In Jeremiah 29:10, God had promised, “After seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.”

Ezra 1:1 says, “Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom….”

The royal decree went forth in the year 536 B.C., at which time nearly 50,000 Jews returned to their homeland.

Two centuries earlier, God had appointed Cyrus for this task: “That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” Isaiah 44:28.

Recognizing in Isaiah’s prophecy a personal directive, Cyrus began his decree with these words, “The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.” Ezra 1:2.

Cyrus continued, “Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem.” Ezra 1:3.

This first decree authorized the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Ezra chapter 3 tells us that those who returned to Judea gathered in Jerusalem to observe the feast of tabernacles in the seventh month, and the following spring, “in the second month,” they “set forward the work of the house of the Lord” (verses 1, 4, 8).

After the foundation of the temple had been laid, “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin,” “the people of the land,” being prohibited from participating in the project, “weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, and hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.” Ezra 4:1-5.

“Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalm. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.” Ezra 4:24.

When, under the inspiration of Haggai and Zechariah, the work on the temple was finally resumed, the governor of the region, with a group of other officials, came and asked the workers, “Who hath commanded you to build this house?” Ezra 5:3.

They replied, “In the first year of Cyrus the king of Babylon the same king Cyrus made a decree to build this house of God.” Ezra 5:13.

So the governor and his officials wrote a letter to King Darius I, saying, “If it seem good to the king, let there be search made in the king’s treasure house, which is there at Babylon, whether it be so, that a decree was made of Cyrus the king to build this house of God at Jerusalem, and let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter.” Ezra 5:17.

2. The decree of Darius I recorded in Ezra 6:1-12.

Because of the letter Darius received from the governor of the area west of the Euphrates, a search was made, and Cyrus’ original decree was found. Darius then issued his own decree, saying, “Let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place.” Darius instructed his governor to supply the Jews with money or whatever else they needed, that “the building of this house of God . . . be not hindered.” Ezra 6:7, 8.

Based on Ezra 4:24, this decree was probably issued in 520 B.C., the second year of the reign of Darius. With the hinderances now removed, the temple was completed in the sixth year of Darius (516 B.C.) on the third day of the twelfth month, and in the following month they kept the passover. Ezra 6:15, 19.

3. The decree of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) recorded in Ezra 7:12-26.

King Artaxerxes, in the seventh year of his reign (457 B.C.), authorized Ezra the priest and scribe, and all who wished to join him, to go to Jerusalem. It was Ezra’s desire to instruct the Jews in the laws of God. Artaxerxes granted him large amounts of silver and gold to furnish the temple, and gave instruction that his treasurers on that side of the river should provide whatever was needed to beautify the Lord’s house.

In the decree, Artaxerxes commanded Ezra to “set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not. And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.” Ezra 7:25, 26.

Ezra left Babylon on the first day of the first month of Artaxerxes’ seventh year, and arrived in Jerusalem exactly four months later on the first day of the fifth month. Ezra 7:7-9. Three days later the gifts brought from Babylon were registered in the temple treasury, and sacrifices were offered to God. Ezra 8:32-35. Either at that time or shortly thereafter, “they delivered the king’s commissions unto the king’s lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river.” Ezra 8:36.

Some time later, officials from the surrounding nations wrote a letter of skepticism to Artaxerxes, saying, “Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations.” Ezra 4:12. They went on to say that if the king would check the history of Jerusalem, he would find that it was a rebellious city which would not submit to Babylonian rule, and that is why it was destroyed. If it were allowed to be rebuilt, the king would have the same problems again. Ezra 4:13-16.

Artaxerxes checked the records, and discovered that old Jerusalem had indeed made insurrection, rebellion and sedition against kings. So he issued a new command that the work of building should stop until he gave further word. Ezra 4:17-22.

4. The decree of Artaxerxes mentioned in Nehemiah chapters 1 and 2.

The story of Nehemiah begins in the 20th year of Artaxerxes’ reign. Nehemiah, a Jew, was the king’s cupbearer. One day some of his brethren from Judah arrived in Shushan where king’s palace was. Nehemiah inquired of them about the condition of things in Jerusalem.

“The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach,” they replied. “The wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire.”

Nehemiah sat down and wept. For several days he mourned and fasted and prayed. His prayer is remarkably similar to that of Daniel in Daniel 9. He prayed that somehow God would “grant him mercy in the sight of” the king.

Four months later, Nehemiah was serving wine to the king, and Artaxerxes noticed a sadness on Nehemiah’s countenance. “Why is thy countenance sad?” the king asked.

Nehemiah explained that Jerusalem was still in ruins, the wall and the gates were still not repaired. When the king asked what he would like to do, Nehemiah answered, “If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it.”

Artaxerxes consented, and sent with him letters for the governors of the region, authorizing the rebuilding project. This commission was issued in the spring of 444 B.C., in Artaxerxes’ 20th year of reign.

Evaluating the four decrees

Daniel 9:25 says, “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

This is an important verse to understand. It is the only prophecy in the Bible which tells us precisely when the Messiah would arrive. It is extremely vital therefore to know exactly when that time period began.

The event to mark the beginning of the seventy weeks is stated to be “the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.” But to which “commandment” does it refer? We have just seen that there were four different decrees, all of which seem quite similar. If we use the wrong starting point, the whole prophecy will be off.

As always, it is essential to pay close attention to the words of the text. We are looking for a command to “restore and to build Jerusalem.” The decree of Cyrus, recorded in Ezra 1, gave instruction only for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. It said nothing about restoring the whole city. The decree of Darius, recorded in Ezra 6, was simply his endorsement of the decree of Cyrus. It mentioned only the building of the “house of God.” But in the decree of Artaxerxes, recorded in Ezra 7, provision is made for the complete restoration of the Jewish state, including the right to appoint magistrates and judges, hold trials, and pass and execute sentence upon violators of their own national laws.

This was clearly understood to be an authorization for the full reestablishment of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation; for shortly after this the enemies of the Jews wrote to the king complaining that “the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations” Ezra 4:12. That the walls had been completely set up was obviously an exaggeration, as verse 13 reveals. Yet this incident shows that for the first time there was actual work being done to rebuild the city. This had not been the case under the previous decrees.

The fourth decree (Nehemiah 2), the wording of which has not been preserved, was simply a reinstatement of Artaxerxes’ original authorization, this time naming Nehemiah to take charge of the project.

Considering all the options, the decree which most correctly answers to the specifications of Daniel 9:25 was the decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra, recorded in Ezra chapter 7. We should therefore date the beginning of the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9 from the time of that command.

Determining the date of the decree

The dates for Artaxerxes’ reign are well documented in the ancient sources. These sources include the Greek historians, Ptolemy’s Canon, the Babyonian business tablets, and the Elephantine papyri from Egypt. From these documents we know that Xerxes was killed in late December of 465 B.C., and the reign of Artaxerxes began at that time.

The decree to restore and build Jerusalem was issued in the seventh year of Artaxerxes’ reign (Ezra 7:7, 8).

The book of Ezra was written in Jerusalem for the Jews. It would be natural that he would use the Jewish method of reckoning in numbering the years. Whereas the Babylonians and Persians began their years in the spring, the Jews counted their civil year as beginning in the fall (SeeDetermining Biblical Dates). This means that Artaxerxes’ accession year, according to the Jewish method of reckoning, extended until the fall of 464 B.C., at which time his first year of reign began. His seventh year is thus determined as follows:

Artaxerxes Reign Fall to Fall
First year 464/463 B.C.
Second year 463/462 B.C.
Third year 462/461 B.C.
Fourth year 461/460 B.C.
Fifth year 460/459 B.C.
Sixth year 459/458 B.C.
Seventh year 458/457 B.C.

Therefore, the seventh year of Artaxerxes, according to Jewish reckoning, extended from the fall of 458 to the fall of 457 B.C.

Although the Jews began their civil calendar year in the fall, and the reigns of kings were counted according to that calendar, the numbering of months was always in reference to the spring. Thus their civil year began in the “seventh” month and ended in the “sixth” month. As an example, notice Artaxerxes’ 20th year as recorded in the book of Nehemiah. News of the condition of things in Jerusalem came to Nehemiah in Artaxerxes’ 20th year, in the month of Chisleu or Kislev which was the 9th month (Nehemiah 1:1). But later, when Nisan, the 1st month, came, it was still Artaxerxes’ 20th year (Nehemiah 2:1).

With that understanding, we may now determine quite closely the beginning of the 70-week prophecy. Ezra 7:9 tells us that Ezra left Babylon on the first day of the first month, which was probably early April depending upon the moon and the barley harvest. He arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month, which would then be early August, 457 B.C. We are not exactly certain of the date in which the king’s commission was delivered to the king’s lieutenants and governors, but we may be quite certain that it was at least August of that year.

As noted in our comments on Daniel 9:25, the significant point in the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was not when it was signed by Artaxerxes, but rather when it went into effect, after Ezra arrived in Jerusalem. The decree was useless until the Jews were actually made aware of it and could act upon it. Until they and the governors east of the river heard it, the decree had not fully “gone forth.” Therefore, we begin the prophecy of Daniel 9 in the late summer or early fall of the year 457 B.C.

“Jesus” – Remembering his true name:

Article from :

“Jesus” – Remembering his true name:
An Etymological Analysis of the Historical Sources
(Second Edition, updated Dec. 18,2000)

by Shibli Zaman

 

INTRODUCTION

Sadly, we have seen Christian Missionary activity focused primarily on derailing Islam now more than any other period in history. Thus, we witness numerous charades and parodies coming from them in their attempts to twist, manipulate and outright molest historical and etymological facts. These polemics range from a variety of utterly hilarious to outright abusive and cruel. However, as a disclaimer, a distinction should be made between the “Christian Missionary” and the Christian. The view of Christians in Islam is a benevolent one:

“And nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, “We are Christians”: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.” [al-Qur’an, Surat al-Maa’idah, 5:82]

On the other hand, the “Christian Missionary” variety is in a genre of its own. Their tactics have been seen the world over, whereby they maintain a “Bread for Bibles” policy in the indigent third world, and are even seen dressed as Muslim clerics teaching the Bible in Arabic to unwitting non-Arab Muslims who are told they are learning the Qur’an. Such deception and forceful proselytization saw its early dawn in the Crusaders of the last millenium who sojourned across Europe to displace the Muslims from Jerusalem. However, in the end it was their own undoing and they only succeeded in permanently destroying and weakening their Christian brethren in Byzantium by sacking its capital, Constantinople. Likewise, the Christian Missionary movement has only bred their own undoing: My genre. As the first word in our Qur’an is “Read”, thus when we meet the Missionaries and their claims we read everything about their scripture to the point that we learn it better than they themselves. In the end such refutations are produced to which rebuttals are impossible and the result is Islam being the fastest growing religion in the Christian world, in spite of their efforts to derail Islam’s insurmountable growth worldwide.

One such dishonest Christian Missionary polemic has been the allegation that when the Qur’an uses the name “`Eesa” for Jesus it was actually a mistake on the part of the Prophet Muhammad . They allege that out of contempt, the Jews called Jesus “Esau” after the rejected brother of Jacob as recorded in the Book of Genesis. Having supposedly heard this disparaging epithet for Jesus from the Jews, the Christian Missionaries allege that he recorded it by accident in the Qur’an as the name of Jesus.

Not withstanding the fact that there has never existed a single word even hinting at this in any document of recorded history, it is completely erroneous logically. Considering that the Muslims accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah, why would The Prophet Muhammad  choose to take the name of Jesus from the Jews who rejected him instead of the Christians?

While conducting the research necessary to refute this fallacious Missionary argument, I came across some amazing facts which I did not expect to find. Much of it I could not even dream of documenting on a single web page, and as you will notice, the attempt to include as much as I could made this page very lengthy as it is. I do fully intend on sharing the remainder of my documentation piece by piece as time permits. For now here is a brief summary of the research which over all took over a week to conduct, and lost me a whole lot of sleep.

Addendum (12/18/2000):

In this second edition, I have included more details and deleted some which I felt were unnecessary or tasking of the reader. Upon such deletions I have inserted notes as the reason why in blue and a link to access the previous version. Most of the information has been added under “Theories on the Origin of the Messiah’s Name” in which I have presented additional theories which I feel are strong historically as well as ethymologically. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and/or comments.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
JESUS IN THE QUR’AN
I. BY WHAT NAME IS JESUS REFERRED TO IN THE QUR’AN?
II. IS THIS NAME “`EESA” A DERIVATIVE OF “ESAU” THE DISAVOWED BROTHER OF JACOB?
JESUS’ NAME ACCORDING TO CHRISTIANITY
III. WAS JESUS’ NAME “YAHUSHUWA`” OR “Yeshua`” AND DID BOTH MEAN SAVIOR?
Was his name “Yahushuwa`”?
Was his name “Yeshua`”?
IV. COULD HIS NAME HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN “JESUS”?
THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF THE MESSIAH’S NAME
V. THE ARAMAIC JESUS: WHAT IS JESUS’ NAME IN THE LANGUAGE HE SPOKE?
VI. THE STAR OF THE MESSIAH (NUMBERS 24:17)
But what does the “Star” have to do with Jesus?
Prophets are named after the events surrounding their birth
VII. THE HEBREW WORD “Y`ASHI” MEANING “WHOM GOD CREATED”
CONCLUSION

JESUS IN THE QUR’AN

  1. BY WHAT NAME IS JESUS CALLED IN THE QUR’AN? 

The Muslim world knows Jesus Christ as “al-MaseeHu `Eesa” meaning “Jesus the Messiah”. This is illustrated in the following verse of the Qur’

“When the angels said to Mary, ‘O Mary! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be ‘al-MaseeHu `Eesa’, the son of Mary; Honorable in this world and in the hereafter, and from those who are near (to Allah).”
[al-Qur’aan, Surah Aal-`Imraan, 3:45]
  – “al-MaseeHu `Eesa” – “al-MaseeH” is Arabic for ” The Messiah” and “`Eesa” is the name used for  Jesus in the Qur’an.
  1. IS THIS NAME “`EESA” A DERIVATIVE OF “ESAU” THE DISAVOWED BROTHER OF JACOB?

The names “`Eshaw” and “`Eesa” are completely unrelated etymologically and lexically. “Esau” is Latinization of the Biblical Hebrew name for Jacob’s twin brother, `Eshaw, who was disavowed. This name is spelled:

`Eshaw –   –  “AYN, SHIN, WAW”; Pronounced “`Ee” (like “see”) + “shaw” (like “saw” with additional stress).

This is an archaic word which literally means “hairy”. It refers to one who has a hairy and dark body. This fact is illustrated in the following Biblical verse:

“The first came forth red, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they called his name Esau.”
[Genesis 25:25, RSV]

Due to Esau’s dark and murky color, and the hair which enveloped his body, he was named “`Eshaw” meaning “covered with hair”.

The corresponding word for this in Arabic is A`thaa with the trilateral root “AYN, THAA, YAA”. This word, likewise, means covered with hair. In Ibn ManTHoor’s cohesive and authoritative work on the Arabic language entitled “Lisaan al-`Arab” (The Arabic Tongue), he states:

“`Athaa: al-`athaa: Having a murky color with an abundance of hair; al-a`tha: an abundance of ugly and coarse hair;  i.e. al-untha `athwaa’ (fem. “hairy woman”, i.e. hag); al-`uthwatu: coarse head hair, matted in spite of being combed; `athi: old person’s hair; `athwaa, a`thaa, perhaps a reference to a hairy man is “a`thi“; an old man is “`athwaa’“; a`tha: Hyenas..”
[“`Athaa” Lisaan al-`Arab, Ibn ManTHoor]

About the name of Jacob’s twin brother “Esau”, Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon states:

 (Left) Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament, H.W.F. Gesenius, 6215, page 658; the page was scanned for indisputable authenticity of sources.

Note that Gesenius himself refers to the Arabic word “`Athaa” as it is the obviously correlating word to “`Eshaw”. The Qur’anic name for Jesus is not related by any stretch of etymology to the words “`Eshaw”, or “`Athaa'”.

Thus, for the Missionaries to argue any further that the Qur’anic name “`Eesa” for Jesus has any relation to the Hebrew name for Jacob’s disavowed twin brother is to dispute canonized authorities in Semitic etymology and to further discredit themselves.

JESUS’ NAME ACCORDING TO CHRISTIANITY

III. WAS JESUS’ NAME “YAHUSHUWA`” OR “YESHUA`” AND DID BOTH MEAN “SAVIOR”?

Was his name “Yahushuwa`”?

– YAHUSHUWA` – This is theorized to be a combination of “Yahweh” and “Yasha`” meaning “Jehovah is Salvation”. This was the name of Moses’ companion Joshua Ben-Nun who is referred to as “Yasa`” in the Qur’an.

The problem with this theory is that there were several people in the Tanach named “Yahushuwa`”:

1.Yahushuwa`  (Joshua) the son of Nun, companion of Moses, subject of the Old Testament Book of Joshua.
2. Yahushuwa` (Joshua) the Bethshemite (1 Samuel 6:18)
3. Yahushuwa`, (Joshua) governor of Jerusalem under King Hosiah (2 Kings 23:8)
4. Yahushuwa`, (Joshua) son of Josedech (Haggai 1:1) and so forth…

However, there exists not a single shred of historical evidence that the historical “Jesus” was ever called “Yahushuwa`” in his lifetime. All the aforementioned had this name, yet their names were not transliterated into “Jesus” or “Ieosus”. They were transliterated as “Joshua”. Thus, we must conclude that “Jesus” was a name very dissimilar to “Yahushuwa`” (Joshua) since it was transliterated by the early Biblical writers into the incongruent “Ieosus” and then later “Jesus”. However, the closest thing to a reference of any executed figure in Jesus’ time period is the Talmudic entry:

“On the eve of the Passover, Yeshua` was hanged…” [Babylonia Sanhedrin 43A]

One will find this quoted repeatedly in Christian polemics trying to prove the historicity of Jesus. However, this is erroneous due to the following reasons: First this mentions someone named “Yeshua`” and not “Yahushuwa`” who was hung on the eve of Passover. Second, there is nothing to say or support that this was the Biblical “Jesus”. As will be further illustrated in the next section, both the names “Yeshua`” and “Yahushuwa`” were very common amongst the Israelites prior to Jesus’ lifetime. This brings us to our next supposition regarding his name.

Was his name “Yeshua`”?

– Yeshua` – This name is rooted in the word “yasha`”  meaning “safety” in Hebrew. Christians attempt to proselytize their theories of a “man-god” Jesus by saying this name of his meant “Salvation”. The Problem with that theory is the fact that this name means “He is saved”.
If he is God then who saved him? If this name is a sign of divinity then what of the others with the name Yeshua`? Were they the “only begotten son of God” as well? Obviously not, as no Jews ever held this erroneous idea.

“Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity…Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah…” [Ezra 2:2]

“The ninth to Jeshua, the tenth to Shecaniah,” [I Chronicles 24:11]

“And next him were Eden, and Miniamin, and Jeshua, and Shemaiah, Amariah, and Shecaniah…” [II Chronicles 31:15]

“And next to him repaired Ezer the son of Jeshua, the ruler of Mizpah..” [Nehemiah 3:19]

Each and every one of these people have the name “Yeshua`” spelled exactly how the Christians allege Jesus’ supposed original name is spelled. However as we can see, this name was transliterated into “Jeshua” by the early Biblical writers and not “Jesus” or “Ieosus”. Why then is Jesus the only one named “Jesus” in the entirety of the Bible and, moreover, in the entirety of any recorded history of his time? It is because his name was unique and neither “Yeshua`” or “Yehushuwa`” were his name.

As we can see “Yehushuwa`” and “Yeshua`” were not special or unique names, yet they were very common. However, “Jesus” remains a name very unique to this Messianic character shrouded in controversy. There is no historical record of Jesus being called by either of these names in his lifetime. Even if “Yeshua`” were the name of Jesus it would completely obliterate the Christian position that he was the “Savior” of mankind, since this name does not mean “Savior” but means “He is saved”. This would further support the Muslim belief that Jesus was saved from the ignominy of crucifixion and ascended up to heaven alive.

(Left) Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, H. W. F. Gesenius, p 373]
As can be seen here plainly, the name “Yeshua`” means “Saved”. Christian religionists attempt to say this name means “Savior”. This is scholastic guile and a statement made in complete absence of even a basic understanding of the Biblical languages. If Jesus’ name was indeed, “Yeshua`” it would only support the historically sound theory that Jesus’ was not resurrected but survived the crucifixion. Thus, he would be true to this name. However, as we have seen the likelihood that this was his name is extremely thin.

Note: I deleted this portion of the previous article for the sake of relevance and brevity. It dealt with other usages of the word “yasha`” in the Old Testament. Click here to read this part in the previous version. I did not feel it was necessary to go over so many examples of this word in the Old Testament in Hebrew.

Similar to there being a complete absence of any reference to Jesus in history as “Yahushuwa`”, there is likewise, a complete void of information linking Jesus to the name “Yeshua`” in his lifetime. The Talmud was written between 300-600 A.D. Other commonly quoted books like the “Toledoth Yeshua`” were satires written to defame Christianity as late as the 10th century A.D. nearly 1000 years after Jesus. Ironically, from the disparaging writings against Jesus came the Arabic “Yesu`” as they are the only source for this name being attributed to Jesus in the Middle East. The Christian world is left at a loss to find a historical Jesus who fits the description given in their sadly sparse Biblical sources.

  1. COULD HIS NAME HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN “JESUS”?

Initially, I had left out this part of the article in order to avoid blemishing the sensitivities of the Christian reader. However, after much dialog and discussion after that first article, I found it most necessary to share these historical accounts. I implore the Christian readers to take no offense in this, and to simply take the facts as they are. I encourage all to let this inspire them to research and check my sources. Let there be no doubt.

There remains a bitter dilemma for those who wish to assert that “Jesus” has any relevance to what the historical figures name actually was. Whether it was Yeshu` or Yeheshuwa` the Jews would have been forbidden to mention him by name.  Jewish law explicity forbids mentioning the name of criminals against God or their deities.

“And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods neither let it be heard out of they mouth.” [Exodus 23:13]

Thus, in order to write about Jesus without mentioning his name and, thereby, breaching the law; they wrote the acronym “Y’SHW” which stood for:

Yemach Shmo w’Zikro” meaning “May his name and memory be blotted out”.

By this acronym he is mentioned in all early Jewish words regarding Jesus. The Toledoth Yeshu which is dated to the 6th Century A.D. calls him by this name (among other horrible allegations and epithets).

“It is no wonder that Jews considered the Christian belief as simple idolatry and felt obligated to apply the Law in Exodus 23:13: “Make no mention of the name of other Gods” to the name, Jesus. Naturally, the name of one of the truest and best Jewish teachers had to be shunned.”
[Jesus the Jew – The Historical Jesus, The True Story of Jesus, Moses Bazes, Jerusalem, 1979]

“…it may be assumed that this shortening of the name was probably an intentional mutilation by cutting off part of it. The rabbis mention other instances of the names of persons being shortened because of their misconduct..” [Jesus in the Talmud, Jacob Lauterbach (Rabbinic Essays, Cincinnati, 1951, pp. 473-570),

From this abbreviated curse of “Yemach Shmo w’Zikro” (Y’SHW) the Greeks hellenized the name to “Ieosus” which later was Anglicized to “Jesus” by the King James’ translators of the Bible. As shocking as the facts are, all are encouraged to research this subject in detail.

Thus, if Jesus’ name had been “Jesus”, and had he indeed proclaimed himself a literal “Son of God” and “God”, then the Jews would have never made mention of his actual name due to Exodus 23:13. Thus, by hearing the Jews call Jesus “Y’SHW” and reading it in their writings, the Greeks based their transliteration of his name based upon this sad and horrible insult to the Messiah of the Jewish people. As it may be to the horror of many, mentioning the name “Jesus” is to actually curse him. Therefore, it is impossible that his name was ever Y’SHW-Ieosus-Jesus. For 2000 years the Messiah of the Jews has been inadvertently recorded as a curse.

  1. THE ARAMAIC JESUS: WHAT IS JESUS’ NAME IN THE LANGUAGE WHICH HE SPOKE?

Jesus and even the earliest Christians spoke Aramaic. Much of the Old Testament, such as the Book of Daniel, was originally in Aramaic though a large bulk of those codices are lost forever. Neither the Greek of the Textus Receptus upon which the New Testament is based, nor the Hebrew of the standardized Tanach upon which the Old Testament is loosely based were their native tongues.

“..portions of the Old Testament books of Daniel and Ezra are written in Aramaic…Jesus and the Apostles also spoke this language.””In the early Christian era, Aramaic divided into east and West varieties. West Aramaic dialects includ Nabataean (formerly spoken in parts of Arabia), Palmyrene (spoken in Palmyra, which was northeast of Damascus), Palestinian-Christian, and Judeo-Aramaic. West Aramaic is still spoken in a small number of villages in Lebanon.”
[Encyclopedia Britannica, Reference Index I, “Aramaic Language”, page 476]

Jesus spoke Aramaic. Thus, the New Testament would have to be dependent upon it. Much of the Old Testament was in Aramaic as well, and the earliest Christian societies throughout Arabia from Palestine, to Syria, to Nabataea spoke Aramaic. So what is Jesus’ name in Aramaic?

“Eesho M’sheekha” meaning “Jesus the Messiah”.

Syriac. Syriac is a late variant of Aramaic widespread in Christendom, thus coined “Christian Aramaic”.
Aramaic. Taken directly from the “Peshitta”.
Aramaic. Peshitta; with diacritical marks.

The “Peshitta” is the Aramaic New Testament and closely resembles the language of Jesus.

Thus, Jesus would have even called himself “Eesho” or more specifically “Eesa” since the Northern Palestinian Jews pronounced the letter “shin” as “seen”. Interestingly enough we find a few striking parallels in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic which tell volumes and uncover astounding facts.

THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF THE MESSIAH’S NAME

  1. THE STAR OF THE MESSIAH (NUMBERS 24:17) = THE NORTHERN STAR (MATTHEW 2)

Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament states the following:

The Hebrew word “`Esh” is by definition a bright northern star or stars in the Ursa Major constellation. Ursa Major is translated into “Big Bear”. More specifically heed the note in the side margin which is displayed to the right. “Eesh” is also a reference to “the constellation of the bear” which is the same Northern constellation mentioned previously.

H.W.F. Gesenius goes on to illustrate the collaborative relationship between the Hebrew word “`Esh” and the Arabic word “`Aasa” and “`Essa” and defines this as “nightly watcher”. Immediately this begins to collaborate in great detail with the Qur’an. The Chapter entitled “al-Taariq” meaning “The Nightly Visitant” states in verses 1-3:

“By the Night and the Nightly Visitant. And what will be expounded to you regarding the Nightly Visitant. It is a star of piercing brightness.” [al-Qur’aan, Surat al-Taariq, 86:1-3]

Regarding Verse 3 of this Chapter, the Master Qur’an interpreter, Imam Suyuti states in his book “al-Durr al-Manthoor fee Tafseer al-Ma’thoor”:

“And it has been narrated that Ibn Jareer said, by the report of Mujaahid, about the verse: “It is a star of piercing brightness” that this means the star of Pleiades.” [“al-Durr al-Manthoor fee Tafseer al-Ma’thoor”, Jalal ad-Deen al-Suyuti, under “Surat al-Taariq”]

“Ibn Zayd stated, Verily, it is the star of Pleiades.” [Imam Qurtubi, Tafseer al-Qurtubi, under “Surat al-Taariq”]

Thus, the Qur’an also refers to the star of Pleiades of Taurus (“Thaur ath-Thurayyah”) as a “nightly visitant”. The correlation is clear and the consistency between the Qur’an and early pre-Biblical prophetic thought, as old as 2000 years before its compilation, is to its credit.

But what does the “Star” have to do with Jesus?

First and foremost, it is probably one of the most historically significant signs of the Messiah foretold.

“I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel…” [Numbers 24:17]

“Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.” [Matthew 2:2]

Chapter 2 of Matthew details the Magi following the North Star in search of the Jewish Messiah. It was the most well known sign of the Messiah.

The Hebrew word in this verse for “Star” in this verse is “Kokab” . From this word “Kokab” came the title “Kokhba” which was given unto Simeon bar-Koziba when he was endorsed as the Messiah by the revolutionary Jewish Rabbi, Akiba ben-Yosef.

“Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph, a highly esteemed teacher of the period, enthusiastically supported the rebels and conferred the name Bar Kokhba (Son of the Star) upon their leader. Akiba also hailed him as the Messiah.” [Encyclopedia Britannica, Reference Index V, page 872]

As Bar-Kokhba was falsely assumed as the Messiah he was killed in battle against the Romans in the year 135 A.D. Regarding the “Star” being the sign of the Messiah:

The Theological Word Book of the Old Testament which is a compilation of entries from Brown-Driver-Briggs and Gesenius defines “Kokab” as:
“1. star – a. of Messiah, brothers, youth, numerous progeny, personification, God’s omniscience.”
[Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, Brown-Driver-Briggs, H.W.F. Gesenius]

Prophets are named after the events surrounding their birth

Adam –  (“Aadam”) – meaning “ruddy”; perhaps from –  (“Dum”) – meaning “blood”; Also related to (“Adamah”) – meaning tilled earth, ie from which the first man, Adam, was created.

Previously, there was an explanation to Adam’s name in reference to “blood”. Though the information was valids, after research, I concluded it was not strong enough as opposed to the explanation given below.

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” [Genesis 2:7]

Noah –  (“Noakh”) from (“Nookh”) – meaning “To Rest”. His name is explained to mean “rest” at the time of his birth in the following verse:
“And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.” [Genesis 5:29]

Isaac – (“Yitzhaq”) – from  (“Tzahaq”) –  meaning “to laugh” or “he laughs”. This name being chosen at the sime surrounding his birth is seen in the following verse: “And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Then Abraham fell upon his face and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear the a son indeed; and thou shall call his name Isaac..” [Genesis 17:16-19]

Ishmael – (“Yishmaael”) – from (“shama`”) “to hear” and  (“ale”) “God” – meaning “God heard”. God announces that He has heard Abraham and his wife Hagar’s prayers and gives the name “Ishmael” to the baby, meaning that He had heard their prayers.
“And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael, because the LORD hath heard they affliction.” [Genesis 16:11]

Moses –  (“Moshe”) – Meaning “Drawn out” since Moses was “drawn out” from the river as a baby in the basket.
“And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.” [Exodus 2:10]

Each and every single Prophet has been named in this way. However, when we come to Jesus’ birth we find a puzzling contradiction and a manipulation in the Gospels is exposed.

The Birth of Jesus: Contradictions and Unfulfilled Prophecies

Jesus’ birth is mentioned twice in the Gospels in two dramatically different and contradictory accounts. Once in the Gospel of Matthew and the other in the Gospel of Luke. The Gospels of Mark and John start with John the Baptists’ advent in Jesus’ adulthood. Between the birth accounts of Matthew and Luke we find a striking contradiction.

JESUS’ BIRTH ACCORDING TO MATTHEW:

“And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” [Matthew 1:21-23]

First of all, it is odd that no one is ever recorded calling Jesus “Emmanuel” anywhere in the Bible. This was an attempt to match Jesus to a supposed prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. The fact that this verse was in no way a prophecy to the coming of Jesus is that the child called Emmanuel was born and referred to immediately after this verse. Let us look at the context:

“Now it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham… that Rezin king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to make war against it, but could not prevail against it.” [Isaiah 7:1]

“Moreover the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, ‘Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above.’ But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!” Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” [Isaiah 7:10-14]

“Moreover the Lord said to me, “Take a large scroll, and write on it with a man’s pen concerning Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz..Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz;…He will pass through Judah, He will overflow and pass over, He will reach up to the neck; And the stretching out of his wings Will fill the breadth of Your land, O Immanuel.” [Isaiah 8:1-8]

You don’t have to be a Biblical scholar to see, the figure of Immanuel was a sign promised to King Ahaz, then in the next chapter the child was born, and then finally we even see that child later called “Immanuel”. Jesus was never called “Immanuel” or “Emmanuel” by any one at any time in his life. All the readers are encouraged to read Isaiah 7-8 in order to see the context of this incident. It has nothing to do with Jesus.

In spite of the fact that it has been proven that Matthew did not author the “Gospel of Matthew”, lets assume for the sake of argument that he did write it. Are we to believe that Matthew, a close Apostle of Jesus, so ill-informed regarding Old Testament prophecy? Historical scrutiny proves beyond a shred of doubt that this was an attempt at scriptural manipulation by those not familiar with Jewish scripture, culture, or prophecy.

JESUS’ BIRTH ACCORDING TO LUKE:

“And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” [Luke 1:31-33]

Note the highlighted reference to the “House of Jacob” which is a reference to Numbers 24:17 “There shall come a star out of Jacob”. This is in line with the Old Testament prophecies and corresponds with what little historical documentation we have regarding the birth of Jesus.

The earliest account of the “Star of Bethlehem” is made by the Bishop of the Church of Antiochia, Ignatius, in the early 2nd century A.D. In his letter to the Ephesians he writes:

“How was he revealed to the world? A star shone forth high above all the stars in the skies, whose brilliance cannot be described and which was of a completely new type so that it aroused an amazement.” [Ignatius, Ad Ephesios, Chapter 19:7]

Thus it has been clearly demonstrated that Jesus’ name being “`Eesa” from the Arabic root “`Assa” and the Hebrew root “`Esh” meaning “North Star” has far more credibility than a reference to a name for which there is absolutely no congruence with Biblical prophecy or historical evidence. By clinging to the erroneous names for Jesus, “Yeshua`” and “Yahushuwa'”, in order to force the idea of a Savior man-god, the Chrisitans have laid doubt upon the very existence of Jesus. He was born as the Messiah, and was the Star that came forth from the House of Jacob, and thus he was named “`Eesa” named after the Star of the Messiah. “Yeshua`”, “Yahushuwa`”, “Immanuel”, “Emmanuel” are all the result of Christian arm twisting of the Tanach to force it to say something that has no congruence with the Israelite Messianic prophecies.

VII. THE HEBREW WORD “YA`ASU” MEANING “WHOM GOD CREATED”

(Left) Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, H. W. F. Gesenius, p 358]
Here we see a word spelled yod, ayn, sheen, yod which is also very similar to “`Eesa” which would be  spelled in Hebrew ayn, yod, sheen, yod. It is also spelled as yod, ayn, sheen, waw.  This word means “The one who was created by God”. In the Bible there is another character with this name who is called “Jaasau” in the Latinized Biblical texts. “Of the sons of Bani; …and Jaasau,” [Ezra 10:37]

As is well known, Jesus was born of a Virgin in what is coined as the “immaculate conception” in the Christian world. It is an important belief to which both Christians and Muslims hold tenaciously. To deny this would bring into question the validity of any Christian or Muslim. Thus, we have a word “Y`ashi” which means “created by God”. This would be in great accordance with a point found only in the Qur’an:

And the similtude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam. He created him from dust and said to him ‘Be’, and he came to be.”
[al-Qur’aan,. Aal-`Imran, 3:59]

The Christians of the 7th century claimed that since Jesus had no father, God must have been his father. Thus, to this claim the Qur’an presents the powerful argument that Adam had no father or mother, thus Jesus having no father is no claim to divinity. Had this been the case Adam would have been a greater god. Hence, the term “Ya`si” or “Ya`su” from which an Arabic version of “`Eesa” could easily evolve etymologically. By maintaining the same bilateral root, the integrity of the name would have been preserved.

CONCLUSION

Thus, the Qur’an’s historical accuracy in its usage of “`Eesa” rather than the Arabic “Yesu`” for the name of Jesus is indeed interesting to say the very least. As we have seen, “Y’SHW`” is actually based upon a problemmatic and an ignoble Hebrew nomenclature for Jesus which is littered with disagreement and controversy. For 2000 years Jesus has been recorded in history under the cursed title “Y’SHW” from “Yemach Shmo w’Zikro” (“may his name and memory be wiped out).

Hebrew records have recorded certain figures whose sparsely sentenced fragmented stories  are somewhat similar to that of Jesus’ as Yeshua` but none as Yeheshu`ah. There is no historical evidence asserting that those references are indeed referring to Jesus. There have been a plethora of explanations attempting to rectify this variance in the Hebrew versions of Jesus’ name, but all are based on conjecture and none are based on historicity or textual evidence. Indeed, the burden of proof is upon the Christian world to produce documented evidence of the existence of a “Jesus” from his own time period.

The Qur’an was revealed over 600 years after the ascent of Jesus, in far away Arabia where most of the Christians would have been calling him “Yesu`” from the same “Y’SHW” found in their Christian Biblical teachings which were sketchy at best. However, the Qur’an from which the Prophet Muhammad  was teaching, mentioned a Jewish Messiah, who performed brilliant miracles, born of a pure virgin, who was named “`Eesa”. The Arab Christians were familiar with “Yesu`” whom they knew as their Lord and Savior. Had the Prophet (peace be upon him) copied stories from the Jews and Christians, he would have also copied their mistakes. However, the Israelite stories which are related in the Qur’an are strikingly accurate historically and diverge from the Bible in the areas where the Judeo-Christian scriptures err monumentally.

For The Prophet Muhammad , himself an unlettered and unschooled man, in far away Arabia to have known the true name of Jesus, which was lost for hundreds of years to the world, confirms what Allah states in the Qur’an:

“And We have sent down to you the Book in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and rectifying it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you…”
[al-Qur’aan, Surat al-Maa’idah, 5:48]

Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shibli@Zaman.Net
http://shibli.zaman.net/