Just Give Them The Truth

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

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



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


  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 []


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:


– Added a new entry:

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


– Fixed a mistake in this entry:

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


– 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,


“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):


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.


NOTE : This article is originally from : https://islamreigns.wordpress.com/tag/refuting-crucifixion/



“…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.”


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.


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.


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.


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 :




“The Commandment to Restore and to Build Jerusalem”

“The Commandment to Restore and to Build Jerusalem”


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



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.

Was his name “Yahushuwa`”?
Was his name “Yeshua`”?
But what does the “Star” have to do with Jesus?
Prophets are named after the events surrounding their birth



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.

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.



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.


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.


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.



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.


“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.


“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.


(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.


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]

Shibli Zaman

Allah is the Proper Name Of God not YHWH

Article from : http://www.answering-christianity.com/allah1.htm

But “Allah” sounds different than the Hebrew “Yahweh”!

The sections of this article are:

1-  But “Allah” sounds different than the Hebrew “Yahweh”!
2-  How can a title beginning with “the” be a name?
Yahweh, also means “the Eternal”, which means “Al-Samad” in Arabic. It’s just a title!
3-  “Yahweh” wasn’t even the first thing GOD Almighty was addressed with in the Bible!
4-  So why then does the Arabic Bible use “Allah” and “Yahweh” for GOD?
5-  Why did Jesus choose to say the Aramaic “Eloi” to the Hebrew speaking people?
6-  This excellent article shows from Hebrew sources that
Genesis 1:1 said “Allah”.  It proved from Hebrew sources with images that GOD Almighty’s original Holy Name was indeed “Allah”.
7-  Hebrew “Allaah” is the closest word to “Allah” and it means Allah.

One thing that many non-Hebrew speaking Jews and Christians mistake about is the name of GOD Almighty in the Bible.  “Yahweh” in Hebrew means “The LORD” or the “The GOD”.  It is not a name.  Let us look at the following quotations from Christian and Jewish resources:

“Judaism teaches that while God’s name exists in written form, it is too holy to be pronounced.  The result has been that, over the last 2000 years, the correct pronunciation has been lost.   (Mankind’s Search for GOD, p. 225).

Here we clearly see that the pronunciation for the original name for GOD Almighty had been lost, and the Jews have no idea what the exact pronunciation is from their Holy Scriptures and resources.

“About 3,500 years ago, God spoke to Moses, saying: ‘Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: The LORD [Hebrew: YHWH], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you: This shall be My name forever, this My appellation for all eternity.’   (Exodus 3:15; Psalm 135:13)”  (Mankind’s Search for GOD, p.225).

“….the four Hebrew consonants YHWH (Yahweh) that in their Latinized form have come to be known over the centuries in English as JEHOVAH.   (Mankind’s Search for GOD, p.225).

So the word “YHWH” or “Yahweh” or “Jehovah” is not the ORIGINAL name, but the appellation (title) for the Almighty GOD.  This is perfectly fine, because Jews, Christians and Muslims call on to GOD Almighty as “The LORD” or “The GOD”, which means “Yahweh” or “Jehovah” in Hebrew and “Al-Rab” in Arabic.  “Al-Rab” in Arabic and “Yahweh” in Hebrew and the other translations in all other languages are indeed GOD Almighty’s title.   But they are NOT His original Name!

Let us look at what Exodus 3:15 and Psalm 135:13 from the NIV Bible say:  “God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, `The LORD [Notice that they didn’t write Jehovah.  “The LORD” in only a title], the God of your fathers–the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob–has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.  (From the NIV Bible, Exodus 3:15)

“Your name, O LORD, endures forever, your renown, O LORD, through all generations.  (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 135:13)

So as we clearly see from the above Verses from the NIV Bible, the original name for GOD Almighty is not “Yahweh”.  The title “The LORD” is only a title and a nick name (if you will) that we give to GOD Almighty.  But “Yahweh” is definitely NOT THE ORIGINAL NAME for GOD Almighty.

“Allah” on the other hand is a name.  It is the name of GOD Almighty.   Below, you will see ample proofs from the Aramaic language that the name of GOD Almighty was indeed “Allah”.

“GOD” in Arabic and Aramaic sound the same, and it is “Allah”.

Jesus peace be upon him spoke Aramaic during his ministry.

“Allah” is GOD’s Name, “Elaw” means “GOD” in Aramaic: How can they be the same?  I clearly proved from the Noble Quran that “Allah” means the Supreme GOD Almighty in Arabic.


How can a title beginning with “the” be a name?

Beside the crystal clear proofs above about Yahweh or Jehovah being just a title or “appellation” (Exodus 3:15) for GOD Almighty, I would like to raise this simple question, and simple common sense test:

How can any title that begins with “the” be a name?

If I call you “the man”, as it is a common slang for a person to be called that here in the US, would that really make your name “the man”?

A Christian just recently told me that in Hebrew, Yahweh not only means “The LORD” or the “The GOD”, but it also means “The Eternal” (according to the New Dictionary of the Bible).  That’s all perfect with me.

The Eternal, Yahweh or Jehovah, means “Al-Samad” in Arabic.  Allah Almighty called Himself “Al-Samad” in the Noble Quran (Noble Verse 112:2).  I am willing to address Allah Almighty from now on by the “Al-Samad” title (Yahweh in Hebrew) and not by “Allah Almighty” (His Holy Name) if that’s going to make Christians understand Islam and embrace it!

How difficult is it to comprehend that a title beginning with “the” can never be a name!  Let alone being an original name!

Please visit: “Allah” is GOD’s Name, “Elaw” means “GOD” in Aramaic: How can they be the same?  I clearly proved from the Noble Quran that “Allah” means the Supreme GOD Almighty in Arabic.


“Yahweh” wasn’t even the first thing GOD Almighty was addressed with in the Bible!

Some Christians still insist that GOD Almighty’s original Holy Name was Yahweh.   They rely on Exodus 3:15 to prove this nonsense.  I clearly proved in the section above that “Yahweh” in Exodus 3:15 was only a title and not a name, and it means “The LORD”, “The GOD” and the “The Eternal” (according to the New Dictionary of the Bible).

Now, let’s assume for a second that “Yahweh” is a name, which is really ridiculous since its English translation starts with “the”.   This still doesn’t prove that GOD Almighty’s original name is Yahweh!  Exodus 3:15 that Christians are so big on using was revealed to Prophet Moses peace be upon him.   How many years are there between Adam and Moses peace be upon them? Probably thousands!  If not even millions!

So according to the Christians’ logic, GOD Almighty was Nameless from the time of Adam until the time of Moses where He, the Almighty, supposedly had finally found Himself and His identity.  Correct?  Wrong!  That’s all a bunch of nonsense!

GOD Almighty’s original Holy Name is clearly “Allah” or “Elaw”!   Like I said above, when Jesus peace be upon him was put on the cross, he cried to GOD Almighty and said “Eloi”, which is derived from “Elaw” or “Allah”.  He didn’t say “Yahwahoi”!

Therefore, any Christian who decides to act stubborn and reject the crystal clear fact that GOD Almighty’s original Holy Name was indeed “Allah”, because of fearing that it would prove Islam to be the faith of Truth, is guilty of sinning against GOD Almighty!


So why then does the Arabic Bible use “Allah” and “Yahweh” for GOD?

A Christian raised this question:  Why do Arabic Bibles used “Yahweh” for GOD, if “Yahweh” wasn’t GOD Almighty’s original Name?

Well first of all, the Arabic Bible uses both “Allah” and “Yahweh”.   Please visit this article to see images from the Arabic Bible showing the use of the word “Allah” for GOD Almighty.  It is important to know that “Yahweh” is not an Arabic word.   Just like “The LORD” is also not Arabic either.  The proper translation for “Yahweh” in the Arabic Bible should’ve been “Al-Samad” for “The Eternal”, or “Al-Rab” for “The LORD”, depending on which word they wish to choose, since Yahweh means both.

So them inserting the word “Yahweh” in the Arabic Bible is stupid and self-contradicting, because if you choose to call GOD Almighty “Yahweh” in Arabic and force the Hebrew word into Arabic, then you can’t call Him “Allah” at the same time!  Calling GOD Almighty “Al-Samad” or “Al-Rab” for Yahweh would’ve been a different thing and contradiction-free.

So my response is:  The Arabic theologians need a basic lesson in Arabic and Hebrew!


An addition from brother Yusuf; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:

“The newest edition by the International Bible Society starts out “fi al-Bid’i khalaqa ALLAH al-samawati wal-ardha.” The normal word for God, moreover, is “Allah,” in the Christian dialects of Arabic as well as in the Jewish dialects….

“(Brother Yusuf telling a Christian) Who said we aren’t? You said “Allah” wasn’t the word for God in the Bible. It starts out right at the beginning and continue throughout. And then you select out a single verse, ignoring the rest of the entire Bible, OT as well as NT. The verse you quoted is also rendered in English as Yahweh, not God; so what is your point? We are talking about the normal designation for the One True God.

You ignored, moreover, that this is also the case in the Christian and Jewish dialects of Arabic. It is also the case in the Christian liturgies, as for instance in the Maronite liturgy. What more do you want? God is Allah; Allah is God, and Allah should be translated, not transliterated.”
To further prove my point, let us look at Genesis 2:4:

“This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.  When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-  (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 2:4)

So as you can clearly see, “Yahweh” is clearly a title that means “The LORD” and not a Name for GOD Almighty.


Why did Jesus choose to say the Aramaic “Eloi” to the Hebrew speaking people?

Why did Jesus sacrifice Hebrew and spoke the Aramaic “Eloi” despite the fact that the people around him were Jewish and spoke Hebrew?  Because Jesus peace be upon him knew that GOD Almighty’s Holy Name is Allah, and Eloi (my GOD) is derived from it.  The Hebrew “Yahweh” (the LORD or the Eternal) was made mandatory for the Jews only.  As shown in the first section of the article, the Jews because of their inability to pronounce GOD Almighty’s Holy Name properly were commanded by GOD Almighty to call Him as “The LORD”:

“Judaism teaches that while God’s name exists in written form, it is too holy to be pronounced. The result has been that, over the last 2000 years, the correct pronunciation has been lost.”  (Mankind’s Search for GOD, p. 225).

Here we clearly see that the pronunciation for the original name for GOD Almighty had been lost, and the Jews have no idea what the exact pronunciation is from their Holy Scriptures and resources.

But the reason why Jesus called unto GOD Almighty in Aramaic, despite the fact that everyone spoke Hebrew and the Law of the Jews was written in the Hebrew language is because Jesus wanted to call GOD Almighty in the Highest and Most perfect form.

Addressing GOD Almighty as “The LORD” or Yahweh would’ve been only proper to the Hebrew speaking people, the Jews, but not to the Gentiles and all of the non-Jewish people and generations after that.


This excellent article shows from Hebrew sources that Genesis 1:1 said “Allah”:

Please visit http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Polemics/moongod.htm  If the site is down, then you can view the article from my site.


Hebrew “Allaah” is the closest word to “Allah” and it means Allah:

The following was given to me by Denis; may Allah Almighty guide him to Islam.

The closest Hebrew word to the Arabic Allaah (alif-lam-lam-ha) would be the Hebrew Allah (alef-lamed-lamed-heh), which is used by Hebrew speaking Muslims, and has been used by Arabic Jews. For examples of the Hebrew equivalent of Bismillaah (which is Bshem Allah) see the following link. That is the closest possible Hebrew word to the Arabic Allah. It is the exact same word, and it has been part of Hebrew for at least 15 centuries (though I do concede it was almost certainly adopted from Arabic).



1- Mankind’s Search for GOD.
Publishers:  Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, INC.
International Bible Student Association.
Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A.


“GOD” in Arabic and Aramaic sound the same:

The following section was written by me after brother Yishan Jufu sent to me the definition references below from the Bible Crosswalk web site; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.

The following translation is found at bible.crosswalk.com:Thee KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong’s Number: 0426
Original Word: hhla
Word Origin: corresponding to (0433)
Transliterated Word: ‘elahh (Aramaic)’
Phonetic Spelling: ‘el-aw’
Parts of Speech: Noun Masculine
– god, God
– god, heathen deity
– God (of Israel)
The following translation is found at bible.crosswalk.comStrong’s Number: 0425 Browse Lexicon
Original Word: “hla”
Word Origin: the same as (0424)
Transliterated Word: ‘Elah
TDNT Entry: None
Phonetic Spelling: ‘ay-law’
Parts of Speech: Proper Name
Definition: Elah = “An oak”

Several points to learn:

1. “elahh” is the way the word “hhla” (spelled from right to left as it is Aramaic) is pronounced.

2. The words “Elahh”, “hhla (read from right to left)” and “Allah” all have the “h” letter and pronunciation in them.

3- “Allah” in Arabic is pronounced as “Al-lawh” or “Al-lah” depending on the sentence that it is used in.  In Arabic, the sound of the word “Allah” could be thicker (Allawh) or thinner (Allah) depending on the sentence.

4- The Aramaic word “hhla (read from right to left)”, which is transliterated as “elahh” which means “GOD” is pronounced as “El-aw” as show above.

5- The Aramaic word “hla (read from right to left)”, which is transliterated as “elah” which means “oak” is pronounced as “Ay-law” also as shown above.

6- “Allah” in Arabic is pronounced as “Al-lawh” or “Al-lah” depending on the sentence that it is used in.  In Arabic, the sound of the word “Allah” could be thicker (Allawh) or thinner (Allah) depending on the sentence.

7- The Hebew word “Elohim” is the plural of “Elowah”, which is derived from the Aramaic word “Alaha”, or “Elahh”; the same as the Arabic word “Allah” or “Allawh” in pronunciation.

If we pronounce the words “Allah” in Arabic and “Elahh (pronounced as ‘El-aw’)” in Aramaic, then we would hear almost the same exact word.

Some Christians tried to prove that the word “Allah” in Aramaic means “oak”.  This type of deception is quite common among many of the Christians who hate Islam.  In the Aramaic words above “hhla (GOD)” and “hla (oak)”, we see an obvious difference between the two words, not only in spelling, but also in pronunciation as well.

The point is however is that we see no “y” sound for the words that mean “GOD” in both Arabic and Aramaic.  The “y” sound is only used for the word “oak” as shown above.  The slang of the words “Elahh” and “Allah” in Aramaic and Arabic respectively sound almost exactly.

So to say that “Allah” in Arabic means “oak” in Aramaic is a big hoax.


Important Note: In Arabic it is important to know that the letter “h” is inserted at the end of every word that ends with the “a” sound.  For instance, take my name “Osama”.   Although it is pronounced as “Osama”, but in Arabic it is written as “Osamah”.  If you pronounce “Osama” and pay close attention to your pronunciation, then you would notice that you are pronouncing it as “Osamah”.  There is a small “h” pronunciation at the end of it.   Take another example “Maria”.  In Arabic, it is written as “Mariah”, because of the slight “h” pronunciation at the end of it.   “Angela” is also written as “Angelah” and so on.  Arabic does not ignore the slight “h” pronunciation at the end of the words that have the “a” sound at the end of them.

In the case of “Allah”.  In Arabic, it is in many cases pronounced heavily as “Alla” and slightly as “Allah” unless the person purposely pronounces the “h”, which would then be pronounced heavily as “Allah”.

In the case of the Aramaic word “El-law (hhla)” above, if you pronouce the word, then you will notice a slight pronunciation of the letter “h”.  The pronunciation of the word “El-law” is pronounced heavily as “El-law” or “El-la”, but it is also pronounced slightly as “El-lah” or “El-lawh” or “Al-lah” or “Allah”.  Arabic as I said inserts the letter “h” at the end of the words that end with the “a” pronunciation, thus making “Osama” be “Osamah”, “Maria” be “Mariah”, “Alla” be “Allah”, etc…

“El-law” or “El-lawh” in Aramaic means “GOD”, while “Eloi” in Aramaic means “My GOD” as Jesus used the word “Eloi” when he was put on the cross and said “My GOD My GOD why have you forsaken me? (Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani?)….(Mark 15:34)”

In Arabic, “GOD” means “Allah”, and “My GOD” means “Ilahi” or “Elahi” which is derived from the word “Allah”.


Another Important Note:  In Iran, the word “Allah” is pronounced as “Allawh”.  In the Arabic alphabets, which is used in the Iranian (Persian) language, there is no writing for the pronunciation of the letter “l” as “law”.  The addition of punctuation to the letter “l”, can make it be written in the Arabic alphabets as “la” or “laa” or “li” or “lee” or “lo” or “loo”, but never “law”.  “law” in Arabic is written as “la”.  In Arabic as I mentioned above, “Allah” can be pronounced also as “Allawh”.  However, in Iran, it is almost always pronounced as “Allawh”.

By the way, the two “l”s in “Allah” are written in Arabic as one “l”.  In Arabic, if the letter is pronounced twice after each others such as the “m” in “Muhammad”, then it is written only once, and a special punctuation called “al-shaddah” is applied on the top of the letter to indicate that it is a double pronunciation.  So the point is, the Arabic “Allah” is written with one “l” and not two “l”s.  Perhaps the old Aramaic thousands of years ago was like that too, and maybe that’s why “Allah” is written with one “l” in Aramaic.

The point is that the slang of “el-aw” in Aramaic and the slang of “Allawh” in Arabic sound the same, thus making the name of GOD Almighty in both Arabic and Aramaic be “Allah”.

Jesus peace be upon him preached in Aramaic during his ministry.


Some Christians claim that “Allah” means “oak” in Aramaic:

I received an email saying that “Allah” in Arabic has one “h”, while “Elaw (hhla)” in Aramaic has two “h”s, so therefore “Allah” and “Elaw” are different and “Allah” and “Ay-law (hla)” are the same, since “hla” has one “h” only like “Allah”.

My response to this is that the writing of the word GOD or any other word in the language is irrelevant.  We’ve seen above how the letter “h” is automatically inserted after the words that end with the “a” sound in Arabic.

It’s the pronunciation that counts.  For instance, there is a major difference between writing the word “know” and pronouncing the word “know” in English.  The “k” is irrelevant in pronunciation because it is not pronounced, but yet it is part of the word.  So if the English word “know” is pronounced exactly the same in another language and means the same thing, then it may not necessarily be written as “know” in that language.  It could be written as “no” and still be the same as “know” in English, but missing the letters “k” and “w”.

Let us look at the name “Shawn” also.  In Irish, it is spelled as “Sean”, where in English it is spelled as “Shawn”.  Yet, in both languages it is pronounced as “Shawn” even though in Irish, the name is missing the letters “h” and “w” and has an extra “e” in it.

In the case of “hhla (Elaw = GOD)” in Aramaic, the letters “hh” are pronounced as “a” or “e”, and the letters “la” are pronounced as “law”.

In the case of “hla (Aylaw = Oak)” in Aramaic, the letter “h” is pronounced as “ay” or “ey”, and the letters “la” are pronounced as “law”.

So we can see just how the writing of words in different languages is different.   It is the pronunciation that ultimately counts.

The slang of “Elaw” and “Allawh” is the same.

Jesus peace be upon him preached in Aramaic during his ministry.


More Aramaic references that prove the original name for GOD Almighty was indeed “Allah”:

The following is from The state of Assyria Aramaic web site.  When you visit their site, click on “Search” at the top blue bar, then click on the “Search Aramaic Lexicon (online directory” link, then type in “God” and click on “English word” radio button.

Word: hl0
Lexeme: 0hl0
Root: hl0
Word Number: 904
Meaning: God
Pronunciation: (Eastern) AaLaH
(Western) AaLoH
Part of Speech: Noun
Gender: Masculine
Number: Singular
State: Absolute
Word: 0hl0
Lexeme: 0hl0
Root: hl0
Word Number: 905
Meaning: God
Pronunciation: (Eastern) AaLaHaA
(Western) AaLoHoA
Part of Speech: Noun
Gender: Masculine
Number: Singular
State: Emphatic

Few points to learn:

1- In the case of “Aalah” or “Aaloh” Aramaic slang pronounciation, it is almost the same as the “Allah” or “Allawh” Arabic slang pronounciation.

2- In the case of “Aalahaa” or “Aalohaa” Aramaic slang pronounciation, it is also almost the same as the “Allaha” or “Allawha” in the Arabic slang pronounciation.  “Allah” would be pronounced as “Allaha” or “Allaha” in Arabic if it’s used in the middle of the sentence.  It can also be pronounced as “Allahi” or “Allahu” or “Allaho” depending on the grammar of the sentence.

3- The Hebew word “Elohim” is the plural of “Elowah”, which is derived from the Aramaic word “Alaha”, or “Elahh”; the same as the Arabic word “Allah” or “Allawh” in pronunciation.

As I mentioned above, by the way, the two “l”s in “Allah” are written in Arabic as one “l”.  In Arabic, if the letter is pronounced twice after each others such as the “m” in “Muhammad”, then it is written only once, and a special punctuation called “al-shaddah” is applied on the top of the letter to indicate that it is a double pronunciation.  So the point is, the Arabic “Allah” is written with one “l” and not two “l”s.  Perhaps the old Aramaic thousands of years ago was like that too, and maybe that’s why “Allah” is written with one “l” in Aramaic (“Aalah” and not “Aallah” or “Allah”).


Further proofs from brother Yishan Jufu:

Here is brother Yishan’s response to a Christian who calls himself “Queball23” on the internet regarding the name of GOD Almighty in the Bible:

Queball has maintained that the name “Allah” is derived from “ILAH”, a pagan name! And that “Allah” was derived from “ilah” through the use of the definitive “AL” in Arabic, which makes it “Al-Ilah” and then with dropping out of the “i”, it becomes “Allah” meaning “The God”!

I answered his fallacies by stating that “Allah” is not what he claimed it to be, and is not “Al-Ilah” as he mentioned. Quennel cited some Muslims who confirmed his notion, however he failed to realize that the use of such expression as “The God” (al-ilah) is to denote the fact that “Allah” is The Only True God The Creator, and not to mean literally “The God”. For one thing, “ilah” does not mean “God”, it means “god” (notice that there is no capitalisation of letters in Arabic, it is used here for the western audience’s sake).

When i replied to Quennel’s views with the fact that the word “ilah” could also be spelled “elah” in English since there is no “i” & “e” in Arabic; and that the word “ilah/elah” means “god” generally, in Arabic; Quennel responded with the saying that “elah” means “oak tree” in Hebrew and not God.

Upon investigating a “Christian” Hebrew lexicon on the web at site: bible.crosswalk.com, i came across the word “elahh” which is Aramaic and used in the Hebrew bible.

The following is from bible.crosswalk.com:

Thee KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong’s Number: 0426
Original Word: hhla
Word Origin: corresponding to (0433)
Transliterated Word: ‘elahh (Aramaic)’
Phonetic Spelling: ‘el-aw’
Parts of Speech: Noun Masculine
– god, God
– god, heathen deity
– God (of Israel)

From the above, it was noticed that the word “elahh” does exist in the Hebrew bible and it means the above-stated definitions. Its phonetic spelling is 100% identical to that of the Arabic “ilah/elah” and its meanings do include the same “god” meaning. Quennel was surprised, to say the least, so he had to resort to some tactics to get out of the dilemma!  This time he tried to accuse me of telling a lie and posting an Aramaic word, not a Hebrew word from the Hebrew bible! This is the most silly argument, indeed! The word “elahh” is Aramaic, but is used in the Hebrew bible, so Quennel has no case. Then Quennel moved on to say that this word “elahh” had two “H”s in it and that this cannot be ignored! I replied that my interest was not in the spelling, but in the pronunciation and meaning.

But, knowing Quennel, he would not accept anything that proves his lengthy “anti-Allah” articles void and he kept on about the “extra H” in the word “elahh”! This is beyond our point of discussion, what i was trying to prove to him is that his false claims against the name “Allah” through the abuse of “ilah” were refutable since the Hebrew bible does contain a similar-sounding word which means exactly what “ilah/elah” (in Arabic) does.

It is therefore very easy to notice that “ilah/elah” (in Arabic) sound exactly the same as the Aramaic word “elahh” that is used in the Hebrew bible to mean -god,god (pagan deity), God, God (of Israel), etc.  I wonder if Mr. Gale would use the same argument against the word “elahh” also?!

The correct comparison is between “ilah/elah” (Arabic) and “elahh” (Aramaic) in phonetic spelling and in their meaning of “god”. “elahh” is not the same as “Allah” in pronunciation, although one of its meanings is “God” and “God of Israel”, but my emphasis was on the similar sound to “ilah/elah” (Arabic) and in it, “elahh”, taking on the meaning of “god”.

Quennel Gale can be silenced about his “anti-Allah” attitude and articles if one only consulted any Arabic translation of the Christian bible from Genesis to Revelation; one would be surprised to see the Christian bible using none other than the very word “ALLAH” for God Almighty The One True God The Creator! I ask Quennel and his Christian comrades to explain to us why does the Arabic translation of the bible use the name “Allah” for God and not the name “YHWH”? It will become even more interesting when one hears the claims of some Arab Christians that it was the Arab Christians who “sort of” developed the Arabic language that we know and that they were the ones to first use such a word as “Allah” and that the Arabic gospel was preached from the time of Paul!! If such claims were true, then why would the Arab Christians, and Paul {supposedly inspired by Jesus} use the name “Allah” for God Almighty? This is a big dilemma for Quennel Gale and for his brethren, one of his Arab brothers tried to insinuate the usual “Allah of Islam” is not The True God, or He is different from “Allah” of the bible! But this is absurd! We are not talking about nature or attributes of God here, we are talking about His One Name, the same name used in both the Arabic bible and in the Quran.

I would like also to point out to one more fact that is being circulated about the mention of “Allah” in the Hebrew bible, i.e. the deleted word “Alah”. This word, according to some Christians, means “swear”. So, I would not depend too much on it since we need to have something of concrete evidence and of acceptability from the Christian critics.

It should suffice to say that none of the anti-Islam critics has come up with any documented, archeological proof on the authenticity and the real and full pronunciation of “YHWH”, which is supposed to be the name of God in Hebrew. We all know that “Yahweh” & “Jehovah” are not Hebrew words, the first includes inserted vowels to make possible the pronunciation of “YHWH”, while the latter is a western version of “YHWH” with vowels!

Another fact, according to the bible, is that when Moses asked God about His name, He told him that His name is “I am that I am”! The Jews and Christians do a lot of manipulations and interpolations to “guess” the name of God, they make “YHWH” to mean “to be” or “the one who was, the one who is and the one who will always be”! Those are verbs and attributes, not a name! God has One name, and that’s “ALLAH”. If anyone has any doubts or proofs otherwise, let them bring their proof, starting with an archaeological evidence on how was “YHWH” pronounced in full with vowels, not the later-inserted ones!

One really wonders why do Jews not pronounce the name of God? Could this have anything to do with the fact that they forgot God’s name at one stage in history, and that being afraid to mispronounce it from “YHWH”, they chose to use literal biblical instructions of not taking God’s name in vain?

In Islam and according to the Arabic bible and sincere Arab Christians, God has one name only and it is “ALLAH”.

“Allah” is the name of God, it has no derivatives and no definitive & non-definitive formats.

The use of the pagan idol’s name “al-lat” to try and prove that “Allah” is the masculine gender whereas “al-lat” is the feminine gender is ridiculous, since this can be refuted from the history of the early Arabs who used to worship idols including “al-lat”, but they have always maintained that “Allah” was The Supreme God; The God of Abraham. The pagan Arabs, prior to Islam, never claimed that “Allah” is an idol, nor can any critic bring any proof to “Allah” being a name for any carved idol that was worshipped by the pagan Arabs. And as a matter of fact, the Quran rebukes the Arab pagans for taking “al-lat”, “al-uzza” and “manat” as the daughters of “Allah”!

The Christian apologists try hard to refute Islam, and claiming that “Allah” is the name of the “moon god” worshipped by pagan Arabs, and that Muhammad [peace be upon him] came and made “Allah” to be “The Only True God” is a false and wicked statement. One only needs to read the Quran without any bias to notice that Allah forbids the worship of sun, moon and stars; to notice that Allah forbids us to follow the steps of Satan (the devil).

What the some Christians need to notice is that you cannot force your trinity on others, which is a man-made, later interpolated dogma. Just read your bible (OT & NT) with an open heart and notice what Jesus maintained about his status as compared to that of God who sent him. Start with John  17:3 for biblical proof that Jesus was no more than a special prophet of God to the children of Israel.


Further explanations from a Muslim brother, may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:

The word Allah in Arabic is “The God” the word for god in Arabic is ILAH/ELAH as in “LA ILAHA ILALLAH” The word for God in Aramaic is Ilah/Alaha the same as in Arabic. The Language of Jesus was Aramaic not Hebrew, and the closest language to Aramaic is Arabic. In the English Translations of the bible, some translators use the word “ELI” for Elah/Ilah. Thus Jesus used the same word for God as the Arabs and the Quran. and God knows best.


“Allah” is GOD’s Name, “Elaw” means “GOD” in Aramaic: How can they be the same?

This is the argument that I received:  How can the Arabic “Allah” equal to the Aramaic “Elaw”, when “Allah” is only a Name for GOD Almighty in Arabic, while “Elaw” actually means “GOD”?  “Allah” does not mean “GOD” in Arabic, does it?

The response is actually quite simple:  “Elaw”, or “ilah” in both Aramaic and Arabic respectively are derived from the mother word “Allah”.   In Islam, GOD Almighty has 99 Names/Attributes:  Most Merciful, The Great, Most Gracious, etc…  “Allah” is one of those Holy Names/Attributes.   Muslims often refer to GOD Almighty as “Allah”, because it is not only His Holy Name, but it also means that He is the Supreme GOD.  That is why some English translators of the Noble Quran such as Abdullah Yusuf Ali (may Allah Almighty bless him and rest his soul.  Ameen) translate “Allah” in the Arabic Quran as “God” in the English translation for some Noble Verses.

To further prove that “Allah” in Arabic means the Supreme GOD Almighty, let us read the following Noble Verses:

“Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.  (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)

This is how these Noble Verses are translated in the Abdullah Yusuf Ali English translation.  Notice that he used “God” for “Allah”.  The Noble Verses in Arabic are as follows:

“Qul huwa Allah ahad, Allah al-samad; lam yalid wa lam yuwlad; wa lam yakun lahu qufuwan ahad.  (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)

These Noble Verses clearly prove that “Allah” means Supreme GOD in Arabic, because they start with “Say he is Allah…”  Notice that it didn’t say “Say his name is Allah…”, even though GOD Almighty’s Holy Name is “Allah”.  But the “Say he is Allah…” quote clearly indicates that “Allah” here is a DESCRIPTION or an ATTRIBUTE to GOD Almighty, and not just a personal Name.  This clearly proves that “Allah” means the Supreme GOD Almighty in Arabic.  There are other Noble Verses that I can present from the Noble Quran that would further prove this point, but I think Noble Verses 112:1-4 are sufficient enough.

When a person embraces Islam, he/she would say:

“I bare witness that there is no GOD but Allah, and Muhammad is His Servant and Messenger.”

The “no GOD but Allah” means that Allah Almighty is the supreme GOD.  Many gods and idols exist in the world.  People took idols for worship as the far eastern Hindus and Budhists do.  Others took GOD Almighty’s creation such as fire and the sun as gods such as the Zoroastrians and others.  Others even took humans and worshiped them such as the Egyptians during Pharaoh’s time, and the modern Trinitarians worshiping Jesus, the Son of Mary peace be upon him and her.

So gods did and still exist today and will always exist.  It is part of our human nature to worship idols in a hope to get closer with GOD Almighty Himself, the Supreme GOD Almighty.  But man does not need to go through any god, because The Most Supreme GOD of all, Allah Almighty, exists and had always existed, and He is close to us and He listens to our Prayers:

“When My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth on Me: Let them also, with a will, Listen to My call, and believe in Me: That they may walk in the right way.   (The Noble Quran, 2:186)

So there is no need for us to associate any partners with Allah Almighty to worship Him.  We can worship Him directly without any idols or mediators.  Please visit What is the Wisdom of Islam? to learn more about the Oneness of Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran.

The words “elaw” in Aramaic, and “ilah” in Arabic are words that were derived from the root word “Allah”.  Allah Almighty is the GOD of the Universe, and He is the Supreme GOD.  When Jesus cried to GOD Almighty “Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?” in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, he said “My God my God why have you foresaken me?” in English translation.  “Eloi” is derived from “Elaw”, and the later is derived from “Allah”.



The Aramaic “Elaw” and the Arabic “Allah” are the same.  The Aramaic “Elaw” is derived from the Arabic “Allah”, and it means “GOD”.  “Allah” in Arabic also means “GOD”, the Supreme GOD Almighty.  You can easily see the close similarity in their pronunciation.

Why don’t the Jewish people recognize the New Testament?

An Article From  : http://www.harrington-sites.com/Jewish.htm

Why don’t the Jewish people recognize the New Testament?

by Eliyahu Silver

From Site: http://www.geocities.com/Metzad/Notstmnt.htm

 …….All Biblical quotations are taken from the King James translation, the Authorized Version, unless specified otherwise.

…….The Jewish reader is advised not to pronounce the names Jesus and Eastre; “The names of other gods you shall not mention, nor shall your mouth cause it to be heard.” Exodus 23:13


…….For almost 2000 years the Jewish people have not recognized the New Testament, although all those who contributed to the New Testament were Jewish. All the writers of the New Testament were Jewish, but nevertheless the Jewish people reject that which 1,000,000,000 people consider to be the word of G.d.

…….What is it that the Jews see in the New Testament that is apparently not seen by all the Christians?

The Jews look at the New Testament from an Old Testament viewpoint. About 3300 years ago G.d gave the Torah to the Jewish people. Millions of people watched this event when G.d spoke from Mount Sinai to the Jewish people. There G.d gave to the Jewish people the Holy Torah, which is the first five books of the Bible; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. This does not only contain the Ten Commandments, but it contains a total of 613 commandments that G.d commanded the Jewish people to fulfill.

The Torah is the most Holy part of the Hebrew Bible.

…….Later prophets arose, whose works are added to form the Hebrew Bible. The Torah teaches that there is one G.d, Y-H-W-H, who is a jealous G.d, who allows no other gods beside Him. See Exodus 20:3. G.d’s name, Y-H-W-H, appears almost 7000 times in the Old Testament. The King James translation translates this name as “The Lord”. This G.d is the one and only G.d for the Jews, as it is written in the Hebrew Bible;

……”Know therefore this day, and consider it in your heart, that the Lord, he is G.d in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39

“See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god with me.” Deuteronomy..32:39

“I am He, before Me no god was created, neither shall there be after Me.” Isaiah 43:10

“Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel and his redeemer, the Lord of hosts, I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no god.” Isaiah 44:6

“I am the Lord, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18

This Jewish G.d is one, as it is written; “Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our G.d, .Y-H-W-H is one.” Deuteronomy 6:4 The King James translation translates this as: “Hear Israel, the Lord our G.d is one Lord.” . Here in Deuteronomium 6:4 too, the word “the Lord” stands for Y-H-W-H in the Hebrew text. When we insert G.d’s name into this translation, we get; “Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H our G.d is one Y-H-W-H.” This is not a correct translation, the correct translation is as above mentioned; “Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our G.d, Y-H-W-H is one.”

….The fact that G.d is one is so important that G.d commands this to be in the heart. It must be diligently taught to the children, the Jews must talk about it when they sit in their houses, when they walk upon the way, when they lie down and when they rise up. They must bind it as a sign upon their arm, and it must be frontlets between their eyes, and they must write it upon the doorposts of their houses and upon their gates. See Deuteronomy 6:4-9 —

—-The Jews until this day do this. Every morning they put upon their arm and upon their forehead their phylacteries, (prayer belts) that consist of black straps with black leather cubes, that contain parchment upon which is this Biblical text that says that G.d is one. Upon the doorposts of the houses of the religious Jews there are small boxes or containers that also contain parchment upon which is written that G.d is one.

So for the Jewish people there is one G.d, and that one G.d is one.

One means one. That is not two, not three, not three in one, not two in one, but.ONE.

wwwAnd then a Jew stands up and claims that he is the messiah, the redeemer that is announced by the prophets. But he did not do what he was supposed to do, set the Jews free from their oppressors, the Romans, and establish an era of peace and tranquility for the Jewish people and all mankind. Instead he was killed, and all that is left of him is a collection of writings, called the New Testament. For the Jewish people, the Old Testament is the established word of G.d. Therefore, everything written in the New Testament must comply with the Old Testament, and not the other way around. The Old Testament can without any problem stand on his own, without the New Testament. The Jewish people have shown this already for more than 3000 years, but the New Testament can not stand on its own without the Old Testament, because it claims to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Look for this fact in the following verses:

wwwwMatthew 5:17; “Think not that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”

——Luke 4:16-21; “And there was delivered to him the book of the prophet Esaias … and he began to say unto them: This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”

So if the New Testament goes against the Old Testament, it must be rejected as being false.

Now let us take a closer and open-minded look at the New Testament.

1. The reliability of the New Testament

….Let’s start at the beginning, that is the book of Matthew. It starts with a genealogy of Jesus, starting with Abraham and ending with Joseph, Mary’s husband, “of who is born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Matthew 1:16. It is further stated, in verse 17, that all the generations from Abraham to David were 14 generations, and from David to the Babylonian exile were 14 generations, and from the exile to Christ were 14 generations. Here already we stumble upon a major problem; in the Holy book of Chronicles, I Chr. 3:10-24, the genealogy of the family of Solomon is given, and in the book of Chronicles there are 18 generations between King David and the Babylonian exile, and not 14.

Hebrew Bible ————————-New Testament

I Chr. 3:10-16 ………………………..Matthew 1:6-11

Solomon ………………………………..Solomon

Rehoboam ……………………………..Roboam

Abia ……………………………………..Abia


Jehoshaphat ……………………………Josaphat

Joram ……………………………………Joram

Ahazia …………………………………..—

Joash …………………………………….—?.. –.?

Amazia ………………………………….—

Azaria …………………………………..Ozias

Jotham ………………………………….Joatham

Ahaz …………………………………….Achaz

Hezekia …………………………………Ezekias

Manasseh……………………………… Manasses

Amon………………………………….. Amon


Jehoiakim……………………………….— ….?


…….In the genealogy in the Book of Matthew we are missing four names that are clearly listed in the Hebrew Bible. So according to the Holy Old Testament there are 18 generations between King David and the Babylonian exile, whereas the New Testament claims that there are 14.

If the New Testament is the divinely inspired word of G.d, then how can such a mistake appear in it?

In this context it is also interesting to look at the book of Luke, chapter 3, from verse 23. Here Luke also gives the genealogy of Jesus, but a brief reading is enough to show you that this genealogy is completely different from Matthew’s genealogy. In the book of Matthew the father of Joseph is Jacob, whose father is Matthan, whose father is Eleazar. In the book of Luke the father of Joseph is Heli, whose father is Matthat, whose father is Levi.

How can this be?…… Was Mary married to two Josephs?

…….Things like this constitute a grave problem for somebody who looks objectively and open-mindedly to the New Testament.

…….Some say that Luke gives the genealogy of Jesus through his mother Mary. But this makes no sense, because it is clearly written in Luke 3:23; “And Jesus himself began to be about 30 years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, who was the son of …” It clearly gives the genealogy of Joseph. The name Mary is not even mentioned in this chapter.

…….So the New Testament not only contradicts the Old Testament, but it also contradicts itself. Since we have two different genealogies, at least one must be wrong. These difficulties were already recognized in the time of Paul. Therefore he wrote to Titus: “But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain.” Titus 3:9. See also I Timothy 1:3-4.

But avoiding the problem does not make it go away.

The facts are that here already are big mistakes in the gospels.

wwwwIn Matthew 1:18 we read: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise; When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy ghost.” When Joseph wanted to leave her, because she was pregnant with somebody else, an angel came to him (verse 20) and said: “That what is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” It is clearly written here, and firmly believed by Christianity, that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Then what is the point of trying to prove that Jesus descended from King David (Matthew 1:1) by giving the genealogy of Joseph who was not his father?

The angel tells Joseph (Matthew 1:22-23) that this is done in order to fulfill the word of the prophet: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.” This prophecy is recorded in Isaiah 7:14. There it says: “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bare a son and shall call his name Emmanuel.” But for the Jewish reader who knows Hebrew, this also raises problems. The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 that the king James translation translates as virgin is almah. In Hebrew almah means girl, young woman, that can be, or not, a virgin. Therefore the word virgin in Isaiah 7:14 is a wrong translation. The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah, that word is used for instance when the Holy Torah speaks about Rebecca in Genesis 24:16: “…a virgin, neither had any man known her”

…..This fact is recognized by many Christian Bible translators, for instance “The New English Bible”, “The Good News Bible”, and “The Revised Standard Version” have translated this verse in the right way, and not as virgin. .

—–The King James translation recognizes this fact too. When we look for instance at Exodus 2:8, and at Proverbs 30:19, there the Hebrew text also uses the word almah, and there the King James translates it with maid, which is a girl or young woman, whose state of virginity is unspecified. And in psalm 68:25 the King James translates almah as damsel, whose meaning is similar as maid.

So the New Testament is here misquoting the Old Testament.

…….Nowhere in the Old Testament is there a prophecy that the messiah will be born unto a virgin…. In fact, nowhere in the Old Testament do virgins give birth. This concept is only to be found in pagan mythology.

…….The angel goes on quoting the prophet Isaiah saying: “And they shall call his name Immanuel”. But this is not what is written in Isaiah 7:14; there it clearly says in the Hebrew and in the King James translation, that she, the mother, shall call his name Immanuel. This prophecy is never fulfilled in Jesus, he is never named Immanuel, instead his name was Jesus. This verse also cannot apply to Jesus because it says in verse 16: “For before the child shall know to refuse evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of their kings.” It says here that there will be a time period that the child will not be able to refuse the evil. And since Jesus is, according to Christianity, without any sins, this verse cannot apply to him. … And when we look at this verse in the right context, when we look at the whole chapter of Isaiah 7, then we see that this verse is definitely not refering to the coming of the messiah. This chapter talks about G.d giving a sign to Achaz, that he will have tranquility in his days. We see from this two things: the whole chapter speaks about the days of Achaz, about 700 years before Jesus; verse 14: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you (King Achaz) a sign.” G.d would not give him a sign by having a baby born 700 years after his death. The second thing that we see is that the baby that is talked about is only a sign, not a redeemer. G.d is the redeemer, as it is written in verse 17: “The Lord shall bring upon thee…”

…….But quoting prophecies or conveying happenings from the Old Testament is not really the strong side of the New Testament. Look for instance at the book of Acts chapter 7. Here Stephen is arrested and led before the high court, accused of blasphemy. He speaks there about G.d calling Abraham. Acts 7:4 says: “He dwelt in Charran, and from there, when his father was dead, He removed him into this land wherein you now dwell.” Here it clearly says that Abraham left Charran after the death of his father. Who was his father? See Genesis 11:26: “And Terah lived 70 years and he begot Abram, Nahor and Haran.”……………………………———-…………………………………..——- –.- —-So Abraham’s father was Terah, who was 70 years when he begot Abraham.-Genesis 12:4: “And Abraham was 75 years old when he departed from Haran.” At this time, when Abraham departed from Haran, his father was 70+75=145 years old. And how long did his father live? Genesis 11:32: “And the days of Terah were 205 years and Terah died in Haran.”..

……. When Abraham left Haran his father was 145 years old. His father lived to be 205 years old. That means that after Abraham left Haran, his father lived another 60 years. (205-145)

So how can Stephen say that Abraham left Haran after the death of his father?

…….In the same chapter it is written, Acts 7:14; “Then send Joseph and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.” Now look what the Holy book of Genesis says about this event. Genesis 46:27; “All the souls of the house of Jacob that came into Egypt were threescore and ten souls.” So the Torah says that 70 people of Jacobs household left for Egypt, and Stephen says 75. How can this be?

…….In verses 15 and 16 of Acts 7 Stephen says; “So Jacob went down into Egypt and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid into the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.”

—–…This verse contains multiple mistakes.

Jacob was not buried in Schem, he was buried in the cave of the field of Machpela at Mamre. Genesis 49:33; “And when Jacob had made an end to commanding his sons he gathered up his feet into the bed and yielded up the ghost and was gathered unto his people.”

Genesis 50:13; “For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpela which Abraham bought with the field for a possession for a burying place of Ephron the Hittite before Mamre.”

So we see that Abraham did not buy a tomb in Schem, but in Mamre, which is Hebron, (Genesis 23:19) and there was Jacob buried, and not in Schem. …..There was in fact a burial place in Schem, but it was bought not by Abraham, but by Jacob, and not Jacob, but Joseph was buried there. See Joshua 24:32: “And the bones of Joseph which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground that Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for a hundred pieces of silver.”

…….About Stephen it is written (Acts 6:5), that he was full of the Holy Ghost, and that they were not able to resist the spirit and wisdom by which he spoke. (verse 10)

What kind of wisdom is this, making mistake after mistake after mistake, all these misquotations?

Can somebody who is full of the Holy Ghost make so many mistakes?

What does this say about the reliability of the New Testament?

……..And what about the leading figure of the New Testament, Jesus, how reliable are his statements? Look at a statement by him from Mark 2:26. Here he says that David entered the Temple (Tabernacle) in the days of Abiathar the high priest and ate the showbreads. This event is recorded in I Samuel 21:1; “Then came David to Nob, to Achimelech the priest, …” During this incident Achimelech was high priest, and not his son Abiathar. A high priest functions until the day he dies, and then his son takes over. So only after the death of Achimelech, recorded in I Samuel 22:18, did his son Abiathar succeed him, as we can see in I Samuel 30:7; “And David said to Abiathar the priest, Achimelech’s son, …”

Let us take a look at an other of Jesus’ statements, from Matthew 23:35: “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of the righteous Able unto the blood of Zacherias son of Berachias, whom you slaughtered between the Temple and the altar.” This event is recorded in II Chronicles 24:20-21; “And the spirit of G.d came upon Zacheriah son of Jehoiada the priest which stood above the people, and said to them … And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones, at the commandment of the King, in the house of the Lord”. .

……. Here we see that the Zacherias who was slaughtered between the Temple and the altar was the son of Jehoiada, and not the son of Berachia, as stated by Jesus. Jesus was mixing up two things: There was a prophet Zacherias son of Berachias, but he was not the one who was slain (II Chronicles 24:22) in the Temple courtyard. Zacherias son of Berachias was the prophet who gave us the Bible book Zacheriah. Look in Zacheriah 1:1; “In the eight month in the second year of Darius came the word of the Lord (Y-H-W-H) to Zecheriah, son of Berechiah, son of Iddo the prophet…” This Zecheriah lived after the destruction of the first Temple, during the rebuilding of the second Temple. The killing of Zacherias son of Jehoiada in the Temple courtyard happened in the first Temple period, long before Zecheriah son of Berechiah. In case that in your Bible translation Zacheriah 1:1 says “Zecheriah, son of Iddo the prophet, …” then be assured of the fact that the Hebrew text says; “Zecheriah, son of Berachiah, son of Iddo the prophet, …” In some Bible translations is the text corrupted in order to cover up this mistake of Jesus.

…….So from this we see that even the words of Jesus are not reliable.

…….How can it be that the “son of G.d”, according to Christianity G.d himself, makes such elementary mistakes?

…….To a Jewish reader this indicates that the people from the New Testament just did not know their Bible.

…….For a Jew this is enough to disqualify the whole New Testament.

…….The arguments; “O.K, the New Testament is not reliable, but the Old Testament, which is much older, is also not reliable”, or the argument; “The Jews changed the Old Testament after the rise of Christianity, in order to discredit Christianity” are not valid. The Torah, the most Holy part of the Hebrew Bible, is transmitted through the ages, over a time period of 3300 years with an astonishing degree of accuracy. There are very many rules that apply to the copying process of Torah scrolls: They may only be written on parchment of kosher animals, which must be sewn together with tendons of kosher animals. It may only be written by a Jew, dressed in a Jewish garment, in a state of ritual purity, which means that, amongst other things, he must wash himself in a ritual bath. Even his state of mind is subjected to certain rulings. The whole manuscript must be ruled before it is written upon, when three words are written without ruling, the whole manuscript is disqualified and must be buried. The ink may only be black, prepared according to an ancient recipe. The Torah scroll may only be copied from another authentic scroll, and absolutely no deviation is allowed. Absolutely no words may be written without first looking to the example. The length of each column must be between 48 and 60 rules, and the width must be 30 letters. Between the letters must be a space as wide as a hair, between the paragraphs a space of nine letters, between the books a space of three rules. Calculations have been made how many letters there are in the whole Torah, which letter is the middle, how many letters there are in every book of the Torah, how many times certain words and even letters appear in the text. And there are many, many more rules for copying Torah scrolls that are still in effect, up to this day. No other religion had such an extremely precise way of copying their holy texts. This shows the enormous respect that the Jewish people have for the sacred text, and this is the reason that the text is handed down through the millennia with an extreme grade of accuracy. …….Every expert, and everybody knowledgeable in the field of Biblical texts, agrees upon the fact that the Old Testament, even though much older than the New Testament, is handed down much more accurate than the New Testament.

…….The Old Testament could not be changed after the arising of Christianity, because it was already widely known to the non-Jewish world. Alexander the Great founded in 332 before the Common Era (B.C.E.) the city Alexandria. The Jews had there from the beginning a prominent place, and at one point there were living there one million Jews. The main language there was Greek, therefore a Greek translation of the Old Testament was made for the Jews there, known as the Septuagint. Septuagint means seventy. It points to the 72 translators, six of every tribe of Israel, who made this translation, which was finished about 250 B.C.E. One copy of the Septuagint was kept in the library of Alexandria.

…….When the Jewish people were exiled to Babylon, the land was filled with pagan tribes. They mixed with the remnant of the Jews, and started to take over large parts of the Jewish religion, and they accepted the Torah. A Jewish priest was sent from Babylon in order to teach those pagan tribes, now living in Samaria, how to live according G.d’s commandments. (II Kings 17:24-29) When the Jews came back from the Babylonian exile, these Samaritans wanted to join the Jewish people, but they were rejected because they were still involved in idol worship. This caused a great deal of animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans. The Samaritans even obstructed the rebuilding of the second Temple. (Ezra 4) The Samaritans remained a sect separated from the Jewish people and their entire Bible consists of the first five books, the Torah. These events took place about 350 B.C.E. The Samaritans are still around today as a small sect in Israel.

The Samaritan Torah and the Septuagint were not subjected to such a very precise copying process as the Jewish Torah. But nevertheless, when we compare the Old Testament to the Septuagint, and the Jewish Torah to the Samaritan Torah, then we see that in most places were Stephen and Jesus made serious mistakes, these texts agree with the Jewish Bible. Therefore, even the Greek Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church of Greek rite, who up to this day have the Septuagint as their official text of the Old Testament, are faced with serious problems.

…….Even the name “New Testament” is not correct: It points to the new covenant that G.d will make with the Jewish people. Paul claims that this is done through Jesus. Paul says in Hebrews 10:15-17; “Whereof the Holy Ghost is also a witness to us, for after he had said before: This is the covenant that I will make with them, after those days, saith the Lord, I will put My laws in their heart and in their minds will I write them. And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” This is written in Jeremiah 31:31-34; “Behold, the days come saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. Not according the old covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant they broke, although I was as a husband to them, saith the Lord. But this shall be the covenant that I make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in there inward parts and write it in their hearts, and I will be there G.d, and they shall be my people. And they shall no more each man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least of them till the greatest, saith the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sins no more.”

Are we now in the days that everybody knows about the Lord (Y-H-W-H)?—-.That nobody has to teach his neighbor about G.d?

………………………..Obviously not!

……..So even the reference to the new covenant, the “New Testament”, is not correct.

2. The divinity of Jesus.

…….Let us now take a look at the message that the New Testament is trying to give us, armed with the knowledge that, as shown before, there is one G.d, and that one G.d is one. Surprising as it may be, in the New Testament G.d is also one. Look for this fact at the following verses: Mark 12:29-34. Here Jesus himself speaks: “Hear Israel, the Lord our G.d is one Lord.” And in verse 32 he is answered: “There is one G.d, and there is no other than He”, upon which Jesus replies: “You are not far from the kingdom of G.d.”

So also for Jesus G.d is clearly one.

…….And what about Paul, who wrote more than half of all the books of the New Testament, what does he think about it?

Romans 3:30: “Seeing it is one G.d, …”

I Corinthians 8:4: “We know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no other G.d than one.”

Idem verse 6: “But to us there is but one G.d …”

Ephesians 4:6; “One G.d and father of all, …”

I Timothy 2:5; “For there is one G.d …”

And look what James says in James 2:19; “You believe that there is one G.d, and you do well.”

…………………………Also in the New Testament G.d is one.

…….Please take good notice that nowhere here is spoken about, or even hinted at a trinity.

………….The concept of trinity is nowhere to be found in the Old or the New Testament.

…….And what does the New Testament say about Jesus? It says that he is a god. Look for instance at what Thomas says to Jesus; “My Lord and my god.” John 20:28.

The gospel of John turns Jesus into the creating G.d. Look at the first verses of John 1; “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with G.d, and the word was G.d. The same was in the beginning with G.d.” Here, in verses 1 and 2, it clearly says that “the word” is G.d….. Now look at verse 3; “All things are made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” Here it says that everything is made by him (the word), so the word is the creating G.d. Who is the word? Look at verse 14; “And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father.” The word made flesh is, according to Christianity, Jesus. So according the New Testament Jesus is the creating G.d. Also in Colossians 1:16 it clearly says that Jesus is the creating G.d. Please read verse 12-18 of Colossians 1 in order to get a clear overview of this.

…….In John 10:30 Jesus says; “I and my father are one.”

…….So here we have a case of a human being saying that he is G.d. But according to the Holy Hebrew scriptures this is impossible, because it is stated in Numbers 23:19, in I Samuel 15:29, and in Hosea 11:9 that G.d is not a man. The Jewish idea about G.d is that He is a spiritual being, and not flesh and blood. See Genesis 1:2; “And the spirit of G.d moved upon the face of the waters.”………. For a Jew it is an abomination that the one true G.d should be a human. G.d is an indefinable, spiritual, invisible being. “There shall no man see me and live.” Exodus 33:20. By saying that G.d is a man, or that He is 2, or 3, or 3 in 1, you are defining G.d, who is indefinable.

…….The idea that Jesus was G.d also goes against the oneness of G.d. How can G.d be one when He is walking around upon the earth as a man and at the same time He is in heaven?

…….Even though Jesus says that he and the father are one, this is clearly not the case. Look at Matthew 23:9; “And call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your father, which is in heaven.” So here Jesus excludes himself from being the father in heaven.

Luke 22:41-42; “He prayed, saying: … not my will, but thine be done.” This also indicates that the father and Jesus are not the same person, otherwise he would be praying to himself. If they were the same person then Jesus’ will would have been automatically the will of the father, but he says: Not my will but your will be done.

…….So they were clearly two different entities.

Even in heaven Jesus is subordinated to the father according I Corinthians 15:28, Matthew 20:23, Philippians 2:9, so it is impossible that they are the same person. We can add many other examples to this. The interested reader can read for example Matthew 24:36, John 5:19-23, 12:27, 17:24, 18:11, Colossians 1:15.

When Jesus hangs on the cross he shouts out: “My G.d, my G.d, why hast thou forsaken me?” Matthew 27:46

……………………………………Did G.d forsake himself?

…….This leaves us with a G.d “the father” in heaven, and a G.d “the son” on earth. Since we have established that there is only one G.d, and that that one G.d is one, there is now one G.d to many.

…….. The one true G.d says: “Thou shall have no other gods before Me, … Thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; For I the Lord thy G.d am a jealous G.d.” Exodus 20:3+5. Jesus completely agrees with this. He says in Matthew 4:10: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy G.d, and him only shalt you serve.” See also Luke 4:8

But how then can we explain the statements of Jesus when he says “That all man should honour the son, even as they honour the Father.” John 5:23.

— “If any man serve me, let him follow me, …if any man serve me, him will my father honour.” John 12:26.

How can this be?www This is idolatry!!

…….These facts did not pass by unnoticed by the early Christian church. In the early centuries of the Christian church there was no such thing as a trinity. The church looked upon Jesus as a “half god”, according to the teachings of Origen, who lived from 185 to 254. But in 318, the presbyter Arius got into a conflict with his bishop, because of his firm statements about Jesus. Since he was a Bible scholar, he could not accept that Jesus was a god, since the Bible teaches that there is only one G.d, and therefore he taught that Jesus was not a god but a creature. But his bishop, Alexander, disputed that because the New Testament clearly turns Jesus into a god. This dispute was settled in the synod of 325 in Nice; First Jesus and “G.d the Father” become a duality, and later the Holy Ghost is added to form a trinity. (History of the church, by Dr. H. Berkhof, 6th ed. 1955, pages 68-70).

So the invention of the trinity was a forced way out of the problem of having two gods, where the Bible teaches that there is only one. And this is what the Christian churches believe and teach up to this day, that G.d is a trinity.

But nowhere in the Bible can anything be found that says that there is such a thing as a trinity.

And what about I John 5:7? “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.”

—-Well, this looks like a good verse to prove a trinity, except for the fact that this is a falsification of your Bible. In the original Greek scriptures of the New Testament this text does not exist. This text was added later to the New Testament in a desperate attempt to prove a trinity that cannot be proven. The New Testament has come to us in bits and pieces, a gospel from here, a letter of Paul from there… The first ones who compiled out of this a reliable text of the Greek New Testament, were Westcott and Hort in 1881. In that Greek text I John 5:7 says: “For there are three witness bearers.”

That’s all.

Followed by verse 8: “The spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are into the one.” The whole part about the Father, the word, and the Holy Ghost, and these being one, does not exist in the original Greek text.

The Greek text of the New Testament of Dr. Eberhard Nestle is nowadays considered to be the most reliable Greek text available, and in that text the verses 7 and 8 of I John 5 are exactly the same as in the Greek text of Westcott and Hort. (You don’t have to take my word for this, just ask your pastor or reverend, and he will confirm these facts, unless of course, he is outright lying to you.)

There is no such thing as a trinity, not in the Old Testament and not in the New Testament.

The proofs for the oneness of G.d are however abundant. Look at these texts; “The Lord, (Y-H-W-H) He is G.d, and there is none else beside Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35.

“See now that I, even I am He, and there is no G.d with me. I kill and make alive, I wound and I heal, neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” Deuteronomy 32:39.

“O Lord, there is none like thee, neither is there any G.d beside thee.” I Chronicles 17:20.

“Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone.” Nehemia 9:6.

“Thou are G.d alone.” Psalm 86:10.

“I am the Lord and there is none else, there is no G.d beside me: That they may know from the rising of the sun and from the west that there is no G.d beside Me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:5-6.

This list can be extended with many other verses, but the meaning is already clear: There is only one G.d and there is none else. No son, no Holy ghost, nothing.

G.d has no father, no son, and no brother.

There is just one G.d.

3. Jesus as the messiah.

……..Who and what is the messiah? Let us check according to the Holy Hebrew scriptures what the messiah is supposed to do.

…….Isaiah 11; “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.”

This is what is supposed to happen, as soon as there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse and a Branch shall grow out of his roots; that is as soon as the messiah comes. Nowhere here is mentioned that the messiah will be killed and that these prophecies will happen at least 2000 years later.

……….Jeremiah 23:5-6; “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

……….Jeremiah 33:14-16: “IN THOSE DAYS AND AT THAT TIME, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. IN THOSE DAYS shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.”

When the branch of righteousness springs forth to David, when the messiah comes, THEN, IN THOSE DAYS, Judah will be saved and Jerusalem shall dwell safely. That was not exactly the case in the days of Jesus. After his death the Temple got burned down, Jerusalem destroyed, and the Jews exiled.

……….Zacheriah 9:9-10; “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.”

They say that he did ride on a donkey, like the whole Middle East in those days, but that is where it stops. He did not bring any peace, the battle bow, the war horse and the chariots, symbols of war, were not cut off from Jerusalem, and his dominion was not from sea to sea; as a matter of fact, he did not have any dominion at all.

……….Micha 5:2-9; “But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel. And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for NOW shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men. And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders. And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the LORD, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men. And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles in the midst of many people as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he go through, both treadeth down, and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver. Thine hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.”

Also here we have very clearly physical redemption from earthly enemies. The one coming forth from Bethlehem is to be a ruler in Israel, and not a wandering preacher and miracle healer. In order to get around this problem, the Christian church invented the “second coming”. However, nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures is it written that the messiah would come once, get himself killed, and come again in a second coming. This is a pure rationalization of Jesus’ failure to function in any way as a messiah. Nowhere in any of the above prophecies does it indicate that there will be a gap of at least 2000 years between the birth of the messiah and the redemption. Nowhere does it speak about a messiah being tortured to death and coming back thousands of years later. On the contrary; when the messiah comes redemption comes. Nothing of this all was done by Jesus. Conclusion: He was not the messiah.

Even in his own days people were not sure whether he was the messiah or not, but, he said that he would give a sign. Just one. Matthew 12:38-40; “There shall no sign be given than 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.” Here he clearly says that the only sign he will give is his being in the grave for three days and three nights.

He was crucified on Friday afternoon, the day before the Sabbath. Mark 15:42

He was supposedly resurrected on Sunday morning. Mark 16:9.

Can you fit in between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning three days and three nights?

From this we must conclude that he did not live up (die up?) to the only sign he promised.

…….As for saving us in this world he did not do a very good job. And what about saving us for the next world? According to the New Testament Jesus is the savior of mankind, without him no salvation is possible. What does G.d say about this in the Hebrew Bible? Isaiah 43:3: “For I am the Lord (Y-H-W-H) thy G.d, the Holy one of Israel, thy saviour.”

So here it clearly says that the one and only G.d is our savior.

Does G.d need another savior? Is there another savior? Isaiah 43:10-11: “Before Me there was no G.d formed, neither shall there be after me, even I, I am the Lord, and beside Me there is no saviour.”

Isaiah 45:21-22: “… I the Lord, and there is no G.d else beside Me, a just G.d and a saviour, there is no saviour beside Me. Look unto Me and be you saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am G.d and there is none else.”

Hosea 13:4: “Yet I am the Lord thy G.d, and thou shall know no G.d but Me, for there is no saviour beside Me.”

So here we see that the Lord (Y-H-W-H) is our savior and that there is none but him. G.d is not a man that He should lie (Numbers 23:19); so we must put our trust in G.d and not in a man. “Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man… Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.” Jeremiah 17:5+7.

4. Jesus as a prophet.

.……..Let us take a look at the prophetic qualities of Jesus.

In Matthew 4:17 he claims that the kingdom of heaven is at hand..

Now, almost 2000 years later, the kingdom is still not here.

…….Look for an impressive prophesy in Mark 13:24-30: “The sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light. And the stars of heaven will fall and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then he shall send his angels and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven ….. Verily I say to you, that this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.” —–See also Matthew 24:29-35 and Luke 21;25-33. .

-…..This generation passed away almost 2000 years ago, and no one has seen him coming back on the clouds to establish his kingdom of peace and gather in his elected Christians.

…….In Matthew 16:27-28 Jesus says: “For the son of man shall come in the glory of his father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.” See also Mark 9:1

…….Did anybody see him coming in his kingdom? Is every man already rewarded according to his works?….. But some of them would not die until they would have seen him coming in his kingdom!…-.Are they still around today?….. Even Methuselah didn’t live that long!

.,……From this we must conclude that Jesus has a very poor resume as a prophet. What does the Holy Torah that the only eternal G.d gave to the Jewish people say about this?

Deuteronomy 18:20-22: “But the prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart; how shall we know the word that the Lord has not spoken? When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follows not, nor come to pass, this is the thing that the Lord has not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you shall not be afraid of him.”

…….Here G.d commands the Jewish people to execute false prophets, who are prophets whose prophecies do not come true. Jesus is a perfect example of a prophet whose prophecy did not come true. See also the prophecy concerning the three days and three nights that did not come true.

…….And what about the miracles that he is supposed to have done?

Jesus placed himself in the place of G.d (John 10:30, 14:9), and he demanded to be worshipped like Him (John 5:23), and people did worship him (Matthew 2:11, 8:2, 14:33, John 9:38*).

So if he really performed these miracles, then applies to him the law of G.d that says: “If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass whereof he spake onto thee, saying: Let us go after other gods which thou has not known, and let us serve them; Thou shall not hearken to the words of that prophet or dreamer of dreams, for the Lord (Y-H-W-H) your G.d proveth you, whether you love the Lord thy G.d with all your heart and all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your G.d and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and cleave to Him. And that prophet or dreamer of dreams shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your G.d which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy G.d commanded thee to walk in. So shall thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.” Deuteronomy 13:1-5.

* If you are a Y-E-H-O-V-A-H witness, and you read these verses in the translation that is made by your church, than it will not say that Jesus was worshipped. It says in your “New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures” that they did obeisance to him, where all other translations say that he was worshipped. Since you don’t believe in a trinity, but only believe in the one true G.d (may his name be blessed), your translation had to be made in such a way that it would fit your religion. However, in Matthew 4:9-10, and in Luke 4:7-8, the devil tries to entice Jesus to worship him. Jesus answers upon this that G.d must be worshipped and Him alone must be rendered sacred service. The Greek word proskuneo, here correctly translated in your translation as “worship”, is also used in these verses where it says that Jesus is worshipped. You can very easily verify this by means of “The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures”, published by your own church. This is a Greek text of the New Testament, based upon the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, that has an English translation alongside and underneath each Greek word. Please ask your spiritual leaders why in one place the word proskuneo is translated as “to worship”, and in another place as “to do obeisance.” Since you already believe in the one true G.d, you are just one small step away from being a righteous Noachide. Open your eyes and realize the truth about him that you think is your Messiah and take upon you all the Noachide commandments.

5. Jesus’ attitude towards non-Jews.

….How did Jesus behave towards people who were not Jewish? When a Canaanite woman approached him because her daughter was possessed, he said to her: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15:21-24. Here he refuses to help her because she is not Jewish. After she insists he says: “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to dogs.” Here Jesus is calling the Canaanite woman a dog because she is not Jewish. After the woman humiliates herself and also compares herself to a dog, her daughter gets cured.

Who needs a messiah that calls him a dog because he is not Jewish?

The “good news” was only intended for the Jews, and not for the non-Jewish world. When Jesus sent out his disciples he specifically told them: “Go not into the way of the gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 10:5-6.-

—— So this is Jesus’ outlook upon the non-Jewish world.

…….Please don’t think for one moment that this is the official Jewish outlook upon the non-Jewish world. In the Talmud (this is the codification of the oral law that expands the written law) tractate Avos 4:3, Rabbi Ben Azzai, who lived at the same time as Jesus, says: “Do not despise any man.”

In tractate Sanhedrin 13 of the Talmud it is stated: “The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come.” The Rabbis saw G.d’s love as available to all people, not only to Jews.

According to Jesus, the “dogs” (the non-Jews), must be satisfied with the crumbs that fall of the table. Now compare this narrow minded view with the opinion of the Rabbis who Jesus hated so much and cursed so many times: Talmud Gittin 61a: “We are obligated to feed the non-Jewish poor in exactly the same way as we feed the Jewish poor.”

It is written at least three times in the Talmud, Baba Kama 38a, Avoda Zorah 3, and in Sanhedrin 59, that a non-Jew who studies Torah (the passages that apply to him) is equal to a high priest.

King Solomon put it into words in his prayer for the inauguration of the Temple in this way: “Moreover, concerning a stranger that is not of your people Israel, but comes out of a far country for your names’ sake, for they shall hear of your great name and of your strong hand, and of your outstretched arm, when he shall come towards this house; Hear You in heaven your dwelling place and do according all that the stranger calls to You for, that all the people of the earth may know your name to fear you, as do your people Israel.” II Chronicles 6:32-33.

6. Jesus’ message of love and peace.

….Most people think that Jesus was the inventor of high moral teachings like “You shall love your neighbor like yourself” and “If somebody hits you on one cheek, turn the other cheek” However, he was just quoting the Jewish teachings. In the Torah, given by G.d to the Jewish people, it is written in Leviticus 19:18: “You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” –

—–Look what is written in Lamentations 3:30: “He giveth his cheek to the one that smiteth him.” So these teachings are not coming from Jesus, but from Judaism.

Jesus says: “Love your enemies”. Judaism says: “If you meet your enemy’s ass or ox, going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again. If you see the ass of him that hateth you lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, you shall surely help him.” Exodus 23:4-5.

Jesus says: “You have heard that it has been said: you shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” Matthew 5:43. It is a Jewish commandment to love your neighbor, but is absolutely not a Jewish commandment to hate your enemy. Instead Judaism says: “If your enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he be thirsty give him water to drink, for you shall heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord (Y-H-W-H) shall reward you.” Proverbs 25:21-22. This statement is later used by Paul, in Romans 12:20.

…….From this we see that all the high ethical teachings come from Judaism, therefore we don’t need Jesus or Christianity in order to live according to high moral standards.

And did Jesus himself live up to these standards? He says in Matthew 5:22: “And whosoever shall say to his brother Raca (a not translated Aramaic term, meaning fool) shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say: You fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.” And how does he speak about his fellow Jews, the Pharisees? He calls them hypocrites (Matthew 23:13), fools and blind (idem:17-19), full of all uncleanness (idem:27), and serpents, a generation of vipers (idem:33). So he did not really live up to his own teachings, and, according to his own teachings, he brought himself into danger of hellfire.

And what about turning the other cheek? After his arrest, during his interrogation, an officer struck him. Did he meekly turn the other cheek? No. He protested. John 18:22-23 —The prophet Isaiah however, did give his cheeks to his abusers: “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked of the hair: I did not hide my face from shame and spitting.” Isaiah 50:6

…….Jesus said (Matthew 10:34) “Don’t think that I come to send peace on the earth, I came not to send peace but a sword.” But this is not the messiah the Jews are waiting for. In the messianic days the wolf and the lamb must feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock, and dust shall be the serpents meat (Isaiah 65:25). We already have an abundance of swords, wars and misery on earth. We don’t need a messiah who brings more misery.

…….Jesus taught not to take revenge but to love your enemy. But when he was on the road, hungry, and came to a fig tree and found no figs on it, he cursed it and it died right away. Matthew 21:18-19 Is this an attitude of loving-kindness? In Mark 11:13 we can read that it was not even the season for figs. What did the poor fig tree do wrong to deserve such a fate?

…….In Luke 19:27 Jesus says: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”-

ww– This surely is a very strange way of loving your enemies. This statement was a motivation for the crusaders to slaughter many Jewish communities.

…….Another poor example of loving your enemies is John 15:6 : “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and man gather them together and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”— This terrible statement is later used by the Catholic Church to justify their practice of burning Jews alive at the stake.

From all this we learn that even for Christ it was difficult to be a good Christian.

7. The present status quo of the Christian churches

And where are the Christian churches holding that claim to go by the New Testament?

…….The biggest branch, the Roman Catholic Church, is deeply immersed in idolatry. G.d says: “Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image nor any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Exodus 20:4. Please notice that it is not only forbidden to worship idols, but even making them is forbidden. However the whole Roman Catholic Church is filled with idols that are worshipped by the whole congregation. What does the Bible say about this? “Their idols are silver and gold, the work of man’s hands. They have mouths, but they speak not, eyes have they, but they see not, they have ears but they hear not, noses have they but they smell not. They have hands, but they handle not, feet they have, but they walk not, neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them. So is everyone that trusteth in them.” Psalms 115:4-8.

…….The Protestant churches are doing slightly better in the sense that they have no statues which they worship, but praying to and worshiping a human being, whether dead or alive, man or woman, Jew or non-Jew, is also idolatry. They think that they are fulfilling a divine commandment when they rest on Sunday, the first day of the week. However nowhere in the Old or New Testament is it written that anyone should rest on the first day of the week. As a matter of fact, a non Jew is not commanded to rest on any day of the week. The commandment to rest on the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, is given by G.d to the Jewish people: “Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever.” Exodus 31:15-16. A non-Jew is bound by the covenant that G.d made with Noah; “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” Genesis 8:22. Seedtime and harvest shall not cease. G.d did not command a day of rest for the Noachide’s (non-Jews). Therefore a Noachide can not stop working on the Sabbath or on any other day, thinking he is doing that because G.d commanded it to him. Of course he can take a vacation and stop working, but he can not do that, thinking he is fulfilling a Scriptural commandment. What did Jesus, who was a Jew, do in this respect? Luke 4:16: “And as his custom was, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day.” So what is the reason for resting on Sunday? Resting on Sunday is an invention of the Roman Catholic church, and has no basis in the Scriptures whatsoever.

The same holds true for Christmas, Easter and other pagan festivals that the church adopted. The exact date of birth of Jesus is not given in the New Testament, but it is very unlikely that it happened in the winter, because the shepherds were out in the field at night (Luke 2:8-11), and this was not the custom in the winter, the rainy season. The pagan tribes that worshipped the sun, used to celebrate on the 25th of December the rebirth of their god, the sun. In order to make their conversion to Christianity easier, they were allowed to continue celebrating their pagan festivals, but now under a Christian heading. The Christmas tree is the remainder of another pagan custom, namely the worshipping of trees.

…….Did you ever wonder where the name Easter is coming from? Look in the MacMillan Contemporary Dictionary: “From Eastre, the Teutonic goddess of the dawn, whose rites were also observed in the spring.”— The Easter eggs and bunny are pagan fertility symbols.

wwwFrom this we see that the Christian churches are immersed in paganism and idolatry, and follow customs and celebrate festivals that have nothing to do with either the Old or the New Testament.

How can anybody expect a G.d fearing Jew to become a Christian?

…….The Christian churches believe in the theory that G.d rejected His chosen people, and that instead the Christians are the new spiritual Israel. However,G .d says clearly in the Holy Torah that He will never break his covenant with the Jewish people, even not when they stray away from Him. When the Jews go astray G.d will punish them. (Leviticus 26:14-17) And if they then still don’t listen, G.d will punish them seven times harder. (Idem:18-22) And if they then still don’t listen, G.d will punish them another seven times harder. (Idem:23-24) And if they then still refuse to turn back to G.d, He will punish them another seven times harder. (Idem:27-28) But despite all this, G.d will not break His covenant with the Jewish people: Leviticus 26:44-45; “And yet for all that, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them: For I am Y-H-W-H their G.d. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their G.d: I am Y-H-W-H.”

www”Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying: The two families that the Lord hath chosen, He has even cast them of? Thus they have despised My people, that they should no more be a nation before them. Thus saith the Lord: If My covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: for I will cause their captivety to return and have mercy on them.” Jeremiah 33:24-26

…….If G.d rejected the Jews, why then is He now fulfilling the prophecies that He will gather in the Jews and bring them back to their land? “Fear not, for I am with thee, I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west. I will say to the north; give up, and to the south; keep not back: Bring my sons from far, and My daughters from the ends of the earth.” Isaiah 43:5+6 The whole world witnesses this miracle, how after almost 2000 years of dispersion over the whole earth the Jews are returning to Israel. In just 50 years a state has been built from scratch, the Hebrew language has been revived. Is there any precedent in history for this? Is there any other people that was dispersed throughout the whole world for almost 2000 years that held on to their identity and their religion?—Surely we see here the hand of G.d. However, this is not the final ingathering of Jews, that is to be done by the messiah. The final ingathering will be after the war of Gog from Magog with Israel. This is described by the prophet Ezekiel, in Ezekiel 38 and 39. Please read these two chapters in order to get a good overview of this. Ezekiel 38:8; “In the latter years thou shall come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel.” Here it is prophesied that Gog will attack Israel, a land that is brought out of many nations. We see now that the Jews from the whole world are coming home. The Jews are coming from Africa, America, all the European countries have given their share of Jews, we have had mass immigration from Russia, the Jews are coming home from all over the world. But, the final complete ingathering of the Jews will be after the war of Gog from Magog with Israel. This war and G.d’s terrible punishment upon Gog are described in the latter part of chapter 38 and the beginning of chapter 39. And after that it is written in chapter 39, verse 25: “Therefore, thus saith the Lord G.d: now I will bring back the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy on the whole house of Israel… ” So the final complete ingathering will be later.

Why is Gog attacking Israel? Ezekiel 38:12: “To take spoil and to take a prey”. Idem verse 13: “Art thou come to take spoil? Hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? To carry away silver and gold? To take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?” Here we see that the attack is in order to carry away large amounts of riches that have accumulated in Israel. Fifty years ago the state of Israel started with less that 500,000 people in a piece of desolated desert, with no natural resources whatsoever. On the contrary; even water is a problem. It was attacked right away by fifty million Arab neighbors, yet by a miracle it survived. The state was faced with major problems, like constant terrorism from hostile neighbors and full-blown wars. Israel has to spend enormous amounts of money for defense in order to survive. Israel has been faced with mass immigration. For instance, since ’89 almost a million Russian immigrants arrived, which is an enormous strain upon such a small nation. But nevertheless, what is the result? Israel has a level of prosperity comparable to many western countries. Israel has joined the twenty richest countries in the world, and financial experts think that Israel is fast on its way to the top. Surely the blessings of G.d are worth much more than an abundance of oil or gold mines.

You may think to yourself: But there are 1,000,000,000 Christians, they cannot all be wrong?

……But then, what about the 1,000,000,000 Muslims, aren’t they all wrong?

Maybe the question arises: If you can prove, in a small paper like this, that the New Testament is unreliable and leads to idolatry, then how is it possible that for 2000 years all the Christians never recognized this fact? —

—-In order to understand this, we must realize that for almost 16 centuries the Bible was not available to the common people. Only in the middle of the 15th century was the technology to print books invented. Before that time every copy had to be written by hand, which made it very expensive, and absolutely unaffordable for the common people. After the invention of the printing press the Bible was almost exclusively printed in Latin, so that it could not be understood by the layman, but only by the clergy. The Roman Catholic Church did not want the Bible to be available to the common people, because they were afraid that when the people could read the Bible themselves, they would realize how they were cheated, and stray away from the mother-church. This was a justified fear, because as soon as the Bible became available to the masses, a major Christian reform movement arose. Hence the church used all means available to prevent Bible translations from reaching the common people. …

—-..The first translation of the whole Bible into a spoken language was into English, made by John Wycliff in 1380. But the church was not as grateful as you would expect. Forty-three years after his death, in 1428, his bones were dug up and burned at the stake, by command of the synod of Constance. Pope Martin V personally confirmed this order.

In 1525 William Tyndale gave the English people his translation of the New Testament, and later of parts of the Old Testament.

On the sixth of October 1536 he was strangled to death, and afterwards burned at the stake in Vilvorde near Brussels.WW

Luther, who translated the Bible into German, was excommunicated and outlawed by the church, but died a natural death before the church could get its hands on him.

…….In 1527 the Antwerp edition of Tyndale’s New Testament was burned at St. Paul’s Cross, London, and a little later mass burning of these works and the works of other translators began. (These facts and dates can easily be verified by means of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, by an editorial staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, or through the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, by Cross and Livingstone.)

——-Later, when translations became widely available, the translations were usually corrupted at critical points, as shown before.

…….The Roman Catholic Church was not very patient with dissidents. The Jewish people suffered immensely under the church. They were subject to discrimination, stashed away in ghettos, they were deported, they were tortured, they were killed. Under these circumstances reaching out to the nations and telling them that their religion is a fraud, was for the Jews tantamount to suicide. .But now the time is right for the truth to come out.

……..It is very simple and very clear: There is one G.d, and that one G.d is one. Give up your idol worship and turn to the one true G.d. Do you want to be amongst those of whom the prophet Jeremiah says: “The gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth and shall say: Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.” Jeremiah 16:19.

——-Wait for the true messiah who will bring peace and prosperity to the whole world in his first attempt.

——-“And the Lord (Y-H-W-H) shall be king over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Lord and His name One.” Zechariah 14:9.

——-“Thus saith the Lord of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass that ten men shall take hold out of all the languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we have heard that G.d is with you.” Zechariah 8:23.

What does this all mean? Does everybody have to forsake his religion and embrace Judaism?

This is not necessary. Although anyone who is driven by the right motives can become Jewish and join the Jewish people, this is not a necessity in order to enter heaven. Noah was not Jewish, but nevertheless it is written about him in Genesis 6:9: “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations.” And what was his reward? “And Noah walked with G.d.” The same holds true for Job. He was also not Jewish. “Job was perfect and upright, and one that eschewed evil.” Job 1:1. So you don’t have to be Jewish in order to be a G.d fearing and righteous person. The Jewish people have a different mission in life: “And you shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation.” Exodus 19:6. For this reason the Jewish people have to live according to 613 commandments. For the Noachide (non-Jew), life is a lot easier; he has far fewer commandments. Seven of them are particularly notable, because if he transgresses them, he will be punished by a human court. These are:

1) Establish courts of law.

2) Do not murder

3) Do not worship idols

4) Do not blaspheme

5) Do not steal.

6) Do not commit adultery

7) Do not eat the limbs of a live animal.

These seven are the minimum that a Noachide must fulfill. All together there are about 30 commandments that a Noachide must fulfill. He is obligated to do everything that has to do with the understanding of the heart, but if he transgresses these, he will not be punished for it by a human court. If you want to go deeper into these laws, the following books are recommended:

The Seven Laws of Noah, by Jacob Joseph, School Press. 1981 New York.

The Path of the Righteous Gentile, Targum Press, Southfield 1987.

The International Lubavitch Organization, headquartered in Brooklyn, New York, is also active in informing non-Jews of their G.d given code of law.

There is also a possibility that there is in your neighborhood a B’nai No’ach (Sons of Noah) movement.

…….In the Temple times non-Jews living in Israel and observing these seven universal laws, were permitted to offer sacrifices in the Temple. Because of the constant persecution that has befallen the Jews since the destruction of the Temple, it was not possible to teach these laws to the world. But now G.d is bringing the Jewish people home, and the Jewish people can once again reach out to the nations of the world and teach them G.d’s laws.

—-“For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord —(Y-H-W-H) from Jerusalem.” Isaiah 2:3.

In the Midrashic literature a Rabbi declares: (Tana De Bei Eliahu Rabba) —–” I call heaven and earth as witnesses: Any individual, whether Jew or non-Jew, man or woman, servant or maid, can bring the Divine Presence upon himself, in accordance with his deeds.”


Keep the seven, go to heaven!

…….Look what happened when mankind abandoned these laws: “And G.d looked upon the earth and behold, it was corrupt, for all the flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. And G.d said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before Me for the earth is filled with violence through them, and behold; I will destroy them with the earth.” Genesis 6:12-13.

…….”Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear G.d and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For G.d shall bring every matter into judgement, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.” Ecclesiastis 12:13-14.

…….Let us hope and pray that the real Messiah may come speedily, in our days, and that the third everlasting Temple shall be build rapidly.

“For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” Isaiah 56:7.

Jesus is ONLY for the Jews


These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them saying, Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go ye rather unto The Lost Sheep Of The House Of Israel. (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 10:5-6

And behold a woman of Canaan came … and cried unto him saying, have mercy on me .. my daughter is seriously possessed with a devil.

But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying. Send her away: for she crieth after us.

But he answered and said, I am Not Sent But Unto The Lost Sheep Of The House Of Israel.

But she came and knelt before him, saying. Lord, help me.

But he answered her and said, It is Not Fair To Take The Children’s Bread And Cast It To The Dogs. (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 15:22-26

It goes to the credit of this Jewish prophet, that he practised what he preached. In his lifetime he never converted a single Gentile (non-Jew). And of his hand-picked elect (his twelve disciples), he made sure that they belonged to his tribe so that his other prophecy might Find fulfilment: “when the son of man (Jesus pbuh referring to himself) shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye (the disciples) also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19: 28)


Related sources :


The Apostle Paul Was A Deceiver!

Original Of this Article is found in : http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_was_a_deceiver.htm

The Apostle Paul Was A Deceiver!

He was Satan In The Flesh! An Antichrist!

Matthew 24:4-5 states you will be deceived by people that come using Jesus’ name. Consider the parable of the sower. Jesus was warning us then that as soon as His Gospel was preached, the enemy (Paul) would be there to steal the truth!

***The real (untranslated) name of Jesus is Y’hoshua   (pronounced like the name Joshua but with a Y, YoHoshua, some pronounce his name as Yeshua). All refer to the Son of God who came as the promised Messiah who died on the cross for our sins and rose again.

Now before you throw a tantrum and wonder why I haven’t been struck by lightening straight from the throne room of God, I can prove to you that Paul was a Fraud using his own words. Of course, if you’re a female, and you’re in the ministry, you already know he was, you probably just didn’t realize it! For to be a female and in the ministry of the Lord, you had to turn your back on Paul to follow Jesus. Congrats! You figured it out! You refused to buy into the lie pie Satan tried to sell you as Paul!

I’m going to make some startling points to wake your mind up into the truth, so hear me out, then I’ll go through and explain each one and give you all the proof you need to see for yourself that what I’m saying is indeed the truth.

  • Paul was Satan in the Flesh

  • Paul was never recognized as an apostle by the Disciples OR Jesus

  • Paul was never trained by the disciples, the men who walked, talked, and broke bread with our Saviour. He received his knowledge from “revelations.”

  • Paul’s account of his Damascus Road Experience changed every time he told it, thus the disciples knew he was lying.

  • Paul declared he was teaching another Gospel of which he himself was the Father

  • Paul declared  he himself was the son of God

  • Paul issued his own commandments and laws for people to adhere to

  • Paul taught the exact Opposite of what Jesus and His real disciples did.

  • Paul worked to destroy and undo everything Jesus and His disciples did and were doing.

  • Paul was never repentant for being the greatest persecutor of Christians at that time! He boasted about it! Over and Over!

  • Paul said God’s law was a Curse. Jesus said it was a blessing. Who’s lying?

  • Paul condemned Jesus and His disciples for false teachings, he condemned Jesus Himself for having long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14,  something approved in Numbers 6:5 and Judges 13:5.

  • Jesus Said: Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), circumcise male children (Luke 2:21), Paul Said: Circumcision is not necessary (Romans 2:26) that is going against what the Christ said in Luke 2:21.

  • In 1 Corinthians 15:1 Paul says that he was not giving them anything but what “he preached.” He explained this even further in the second book (or letter) to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:17). It reads – “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.” He’s telling you plain and simple he was speaking of himself and not from or of the Lord!”

  • Paul cursed Jesus and His disciples

  • Paul claimed he himself was the son of God

  • Paul Supported and demanded Adherence to Iniquity (Discrimination), Jesus said to not let it be found among us! Who’s lying?

Jesus: When Yahshua confronts the Adversary, he defeats him by saying, “You shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of YHWH, and Him alone will you serve.”

Paul: When Paul is mobbed by people who wish to stone him for preaching against the Law of YHWH, he relies on the worldly authorities as a Roman entitled to the protection of the government rulers who save him (Dt. 8:3, Mt.4:4, Acts 22:26, 23:27

(Matthew 23:9)


(1 Corinthians 4:15)

(Mark 1:14, Matt.4:23).
‘PAUL’ CAME preaching, by his own admission,

many excerpts taken from disciplesofchrist.com

“I (‘PAUL’) testify to the gospel of the grace of god…ANOTHER GOSPEL…ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL ”
(Acts 20:24. 2 Corinthians 11:4. 1 Corinthians 10:23).

(Jude 4. 1 John 2:22)


” If we or an angel from heaven preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL to you than what we (Paul and his followers) have preached to you LET HIM BE A CURSE”
(Gal 1:18)

There was a distinction even back then with the disciples of Jesus and Paul and “his” followers. Barnabbas and Mark both followed Paul at one time and then left him and went back to the disciples. Barnabbas was sent by the Apostle Peter  to travel with Paul and teach Paul the ways and teachings of Jesus, but Paul wasn’t going to play second fiddle to anyone and  usurped the authority of Barnabbas and taught what he wanted to teach.  How many ever knew that Paul was suppose to be subservient to Barnabbas?


Indeed I PAUL say to you that IF ANYONE BECOME CIRCUMCISED Christ will profit you nothing ” (Gal. 5:2).

too bad Paul! The circumcision was a sign of the covenant between Israel and Yahovah and you’re lie was exposed for what it was! Another false “divine revelation!”

YET, despite his assertion that ‘Christ will profit you nothing’, ‘Paul’ himself, HYPOCRITICALLY ” took TIMOTHY and CIRCUMCISED HIM ”
(Acts 16:3).

Now Paul declares it’s ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols

” For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than THESE NECESSARY THINGS:
That you ABSTAIN FROM MEATS offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled and from fornication…”
(Acts 15:28:29)
” But I (Jesus) have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a STUMBLING BLOCK before the children of Israel, TO EAT THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS ”
(Revelation 2:14)



( 1 Cor.3:10. Eph 2:20 The words of PSALM 68:18 read “HE (ALMIGHTY GOD) RECEIVED gifts FROM men” (Psalm 68:18)

‘Paul’ TOOK AWAY FROM the words of Psalm 68:18 and changed them to read “he GAVE gifts TO men” (Ephesians 4:8)


Now do you wonder why there’s so much strife and division in our churches today? Because they’re filled with Saul-Paul-Satan who completely contradicts the Real Word of God!


in Hebrew the name “Saul” means underworld, borrowed


(Matthew 24:14,15 Shem Tov Jewish translation from original Jewish Version as written by Matthew)




“He said, “Behold, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation, for it pertains to the appointed time of THE END…”.
“From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and THE ABOMINATION WHICH MAKES DESOLATE is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
(Daniel 8:19. 11:31. 12:11)




” Little children, IT IS THE LAST HOUR (THE END); and as ye have heard THE ANTICHRIST SHALL COME, even NOW there are MANY ANTICHRISTS; this is how we know that it is THE LAST HOUR (THE END)”
(1 John 2:18)


(Matthew 24:5. Matthew 23:8,10)

(Luke 10:18)

“So the great DRAGON was cast out FROM HEAVEN, that SERPENT of old called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; HE WAS CAST TO THE EARTH AND HIS ANGELS WERE CAST OUT WITH HIM ”
(Revelation 12:9. Matthew 13:39)

” As SAUL journeyed he came near Damascus and suddenly A LIGHT FROM HEAVEN (LIGHTNING) shone around him and he fell to the ground”
(Acts 9:3,4)


” there fell from SAUL’S eyes something like SCALES (of the SERPENT)”
(Acts 9:18)

(Revelation 2:2)


(Matthew 24:5. Matthew 23:8,10)


Peter established a test for apostles:
PETER said…therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us ALL THE TIME that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us–BEGINNING WITH THE BAPTISM OF JOHN until THE DAY HE WAS TAKEN UP FROM US –one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

(Acts 1:21,22) In other words, in order to be an apostle you would have had to have been a disciple first!

(NOTE: Because ‘Paul’, Barnabas, Timothy, Silvanus and others failed to meet the TEST, set by Peter they were “REJECTED BY ALL IN ASIA”; as acknowledged by ‘Paul’ and Timothy).

(2 Tim. 1:15).

SAUL (who changed his name to ‘Paul’) ENEMY OF JESUS CHRIST

(John 5:43b)

” SAUL who is ALSO called ‘PAUL’
( Acts 13:9 )
JESUS prophesied ” While men slept HIS ENEMY came and sowed TARES
(Jude 4)
” JESUS said to them AN ENEMY has done this ”
(Matthew 13:28)

( Matthew 13:39. Matthew 25:41 )

JESUS explained: ” THE ENEMY who sowed THE TARES is THE DEVIL ”
( Matt.13:39 )
( Matthew 13:38. Matt. 6:13. John 17:15 )
” There fell from SAUL’S eyes, something like SCALES(of the SERPENT”
(Acts 9:18)


Paul BOASTED about being the persecutor of the Jews.

 He NEVER Repented or sought their forgiveness.

Or God’s!

JESUS said ” He was a MURDERER from the beginning ”
(John 8:44)
“He shall PERSECUTE the saints of The Most HIGH”
(Daniel 7:25)
“SAUL was in hearty agreement with putting Stephen to death. And on that day a GREAT PERSECUTION began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles”.
“But SAUL began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison”.
” SAUL breathing THREATS and MURDER against the disciples of The Lord ”
(Acts 8:1-3. 9:1 )


(Daniel 7:25)


(1 Corinthians 4:15)


“Jesus said unto him, Thou shall love THE LORD THY GOD with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is THE FIRST and great commandment. And the SECOND is like unto it. Thou shall love THY NEIGHBOUR as thyself. On these TWO commandments hang ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS”.
(Matthew 22:37-40).

The devil ‘Paul’ showed his HATRED FOR GOD, THE FATHER by teaching THE LIE:

“For ALL THE LAW is fulfilled in ONE WORD, even in this: Thou shall love THY NEIGHBOUR (no LOVE FOR GOD) as thyself”
(Galations 5:14. Romans 13:9)

(1 Corinthians 6:12)

(NOTE: Because the devil ‘Paul’ taught the REMOVAL of the first FOUR of the TEN COMMANDMENTS which require LOVE OF GOD, THE FATHER; christians have sought to corrupt the same FIRST FOUR COMMANDMENTS by (1) substituting ‘trinity’ instead of GOD,THE FATHER THE ONLY TRUE GOD (2)completely REMOVING THE SECOND and (3) TRAMPLE ON THE THIRD and (4)SUBSTITUTED ‘sunday’the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK for THE SABBATH (SEVENTH DAY) (ALTERATIONS IN TIMES)


(Luke 16:15)

(Matthew 24:15 Shem Tov Jewish vsn. Daniel 9:27. 12:11)
“From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the ABOMINATION WHICH MAKES DESOLATE is set up, there will be 1,290 days “.
(Daniel 12:11)
(NOTE: ‘PAUL’, the ‘THE ANTI-CHRIST and THE ABOMINATION WHICH MAKES DESOLATE’ made his ‘ungodly’ appearance EXACTLY “1290 days” after the death of Yeshua (Jesus) The MESSIAH as prophesied by Daniel. On the very day when Yeshua (Jesus) ‘ made himself an offering for sin’ (Isaiah 53:10), ‘the regular sacrifice ‘ was ‘abolished’; confirmed by God, the Father when ” The veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom” as recorded in Matthew 27:51)
“…and on the wing of ABOMINATIONS will come ONE WHO MAKES DESOLATE, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”
(Daniel 9:27)
(1 John 2:18. Matthew 13:38,39)
The TRUE apostle, also John declared ” HE is THE ANTICHRIST who DENIES BOTH THE FATHER AND THE SON ”
(1 John 2:22)



(Matthew 23:9)


(1 Corinthians 4:15)

NOTE: Everyone of ‘Paul’s’ papal successors BLASPHEMOUSLY claim, like ‘Paul’, the title “HOLY FATHER”; which Title belongs, EXCLUSIVELY, to THE ONLY TRUE GOD, THE FATHER, as testified by JESUS “HOLY FATHER” (John 17:3,11)




(Matthew 24:5. Matthew 23:8,10)

(Acts 2:22)

NOTE: This diabolical ” BOAST ” was in fulfillment of the warning given by JESUS:
“For false christs and false prophets will arise and will show GREAT SIGNS AND WONDERS, so as to MISLEAD, if possible, even the elect ”
(Matthew 24:24. see also Acts 15:12)


” IF ANYONE ELSE thinks he has confidence in the flesh I (PAUL) MORE SO,
” concerning the RIGHTEOUSNESS which is in THE LAW I (PAUL) AM BLAMELESS ”
(Phil. 3:6).


(Matthew 24:5. Matthew 23:8,10)

(John 10:36)

” It pleased god to reveal his SON in ME (‘PAUL’)”
( Gal. 1:15,16 )

> (2 Cor. 12:11)

(MATTHEW 24:5,24 )


That the APOSTLE PETER was the Divinely appointed “APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES” was unquestioned by The Twelve Apostles of The Lamb as PETER himself reminded them, at the Council meeting in Jerusalem:
“After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe”
(Acts 15:7).
At the same Council meeting the false apostle ‘Paul’ had “SECRETLY CREPT IN” (Jude 4) by changing his name from Saul to ‘Paul’. When PETER had completed his testimony the false apostle ‘Paul’ sought to assert his self-assumed apostolic authority by “showing signs and wonders to deceive, if possible the elected twelve, as Yeshua (Jesus) had warned” (Acts 15:12. Matthew 24:24).
When this failed the devil and false apostle ‘Paul’ later sought to usurp the Divinely appointed authority of the APOSTLE PETER as the “APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES”. ‘Paul’wrote the LIE to his Galation followers that he (‘Paul’)and NOT PETER “was entrusted with the gospel to the Gentiles” (Galations 2:7). In that same infamous letter ‘Paul’ also attacked the integrity of the faithful apostle PETER by making un-corroborated and FALSE CHARGES against PETER. These same LIES have been preached and written about by Pauline Christian ministers for the last two thousand years.

( Revelation 13:18 )

” Here is wisdom. Let him that has understanding reckon the NUMBER OF THE BEAST, for it is THE NUMBER OF A MAN; and HIS number is six hundred and sixty six (666).”
(Revelation 13:18)
In HEBREW the number 666 is identified by the HEBREW LETTERS TRSV;
T=400, R=200, S=60, V=6 Which TOTAL 666.
TRSV is pronounced TARSU.
(NOTE: In Scripture the PLACE OF ORIGIN IDENTIFIES the person; eg “Jesus of Nazareth”, “Joseph of Arimathea”, “Paul of Tarsu”.
“PAUL OF TARSU(TRSV)” is identified by THE NUMBER 666.


THE NUMBER 666 is the sum of the numerical value of the Greek Letters in the Greek word LATEINOS, which means ” THE LATIN MAN “.
THE GREEK NUMERIC VALUE 30 1 300 5 10 50 70 200 = 666

The association of “Lateinos” with 666 was acknowledged, with great embarassment, by the historian IRENAEUS (ca. 130-202 A.D.),in his document ‘Against Heresies’, “For the Latins are they who at present bear rule…this being the name of the last kingdom (of the four seen by Daniel)…I will not, however, make any boast over this (coincidence)…”.

The COWARD ‘PAUL’ identified himself as
” a man that is a Roman ”
(Acts 22:25)

in order to escape persecution and death.

‘Paul’ ” a man that is a Roman ” is ” The Latin Man “.
(Revelation 13:18).




Having secured safe passage,under the patronage of CAESAR, he was taken to to ROME, under the pretence of being a prisoner.
Upon arrival at Rome ‘Paul’ was installed in a luxurious villa where
” he was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him (for his own protection)”
(Acts 27:1. 28:16).
This “soldier” was the very first of the ” vatican guards ” supplied by CAESAR to provide protection to ‘Paul’ and his papal successors.
Everyone of the christian Popes, who have since succeeded the first Pope ‘Paul’, to the office of the papacy, are identified by the same NUMBER OF THE BEAST (666). Like ‘PAUL’ the Christian Popes BLASPHEMOUSLY claim the Titles “HOLY FATHER” and ‘vicar of christ (instead of christ); which is inscribed on their tiaras.


(John 8:44)

” You have tested those who SAY THEY ARE APOSTLES and ARE NOT and have found them LIARS”
(Rev. 2:2)
‘Paul’ BOASTED of his LIES
If through MY LIE God’s truth abounds to His glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?
(Romans 3:7)
In every way, whether in PRETENCE or in truth, Jesus is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice

(Philippians 1:18)


” If anyone else thinks he has confidence in the flesh I (‘Paul’)MORE SO…
( Phil 3:6 ).
(John 7:19).


” But when SAUL had come to Jerusalem HE tried to join the disciples; but they were ALL AFRAID OF HIM AND DID NOT BELIEVE THAT HE WAS A DISCIPLE ”
(Acts 9:26).
“All the people kept (stunned)silence, as they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what SIGNS AND WONDERS ‘God had done through them among the Gentiles’.
“After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, LISTEN TO ME”.
(Acts 15:12,13).

NOTE the swift intervention of James telling ” all the people…LISTEN TO ME ” and not be ” listening ” to “Barnabas and Paul” who attempted to ” SHOW SIGNS AND WONDERS TO DECEIVE, IF POSSIBLE, EVEN THE ELECT ” as Jesus warned in Matthew 24:24.

‘PAUL’ COMPLAINED BITTERLY to his disciple Timothy
(2 Tim. 1:15).


(Mark 1:14, Matt.4:23).

“I (‘PAUL’) testify to the gospel of the grace of god…ANOTHER GOSPEL…ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL ”
(Acts 20:24. 2 Corinthians 11:4. 1 Corinthians 10:23).

(Jude 4. 1 John 2:22)



” If we or an angel from heaven preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL to you than what we have preached to you LET HIM BE A CURSE”
(Gal 1:18)

NOTE: ONLY amongst christians, in every christian home, office, workshop, place of worship, theatre, cinema, radio, television etc is “THE NOBLE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST” (James 2:7) used as ” a curse ” as commanded by the devil and false apostle ‘Paul’.



” Indeed I PAUL say to you that IF ANYONE BECOME CIRCUMCISED Christ will profit you nothing ” (Gal. 5:2).

YET, despite his assertion that ‘Christ will profit you nothing’, ‘Paul’ himself, HYPOCRITICALLY ” took TIMOTHY and CIRCUMCISED HIM ”
(Acts 16:3).
(Acts 21:26)


” I (Paul) am fully convinced NO FOOD is UNCLEAN in itself ”
(Romans 14:14)

” For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than THESE NECESSARY THINGS:
That you ABSTAIN FROM MEATS offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled and from fornication…”
(Acts 15:28:29)
” But I (Jesus) have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a STUMBLING BLOCK before the children of Israel, TO EAT THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS ”
(Revelation 2:14)

NOTE: CHRISTIANS in every country EAT BLOOD PRODUCTS such as ‘black and white puddings and PORK MEATS




(Matthew 24:14,15 Shem Tov Jewish translation from original Jewish Version as written by Matthew)

(Matthew 24:5. Matthew 23:8,10)

( 1 Cor.3:10. Eph 2:20


In order to justify his appointment of ‘APOSTLES and PROPHETS’, ‘Paul CHANGED OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE.

The words of PSALM 68:18 read “HE (ALMIGHTY GOD) RECEIVED gifts FROM men” (Psalm 68:18)
‘Paul’ TOOK AWAY FROM the words of Psalm 68:18 and changed them to read “he GAVE gifts TO men” (Ephesians 4:8)

” Now in the church that was in ANTIOCH there were certain PROPHETS…and PAUL ”
(Acts 13:1).
” PAUL’S disciples ”
(Acts 9:25).
(Acts 11:26).



(Daniel 7:25)

(1 Cor. 9:9).
” You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain ”
(Deut 25:4).

In giving this command to MOSES, GOD was showing HIS CONCERN for the welfare of the oxen (see also Proverbs 12:10)” A righteous man regards the life of his animal “.

PAUL teaches the BRAZEN LIE that ” GOD is NOT CONCERNED with OXEN (but)…says it ALTOGETHER for our sakes ” (1 Cor. 9:9)..


The devil ‘Paul’ and his christian ministers(angels) are THE ONLY PEOPLE who “BUY AND SELL”(Revelation 13:17) their evil doctrines for “MONEY”.
(Jude 11. Revelation 13:17).

“and he(‘Paul’)provides that no one will be able to BUY OR SELL, except the one who has the mark (the ‘cross’), or the name of the beast or the number of his name.
(Revelation 13:17. Matthew 25:9,10)
(Matthew 25:9,10. Jude 11)


In order to justify his appointment of ‘APOSTLES and PROPHETS, pastors, teachers etc ‘, ‘Paul CHANGED OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE.

The words of PSALM 68:18 read “HE (ALMIGHTY GOD) RECEIVED gifts FROM men” (Psalm 68:18, 29)

‘Paul’ TOOK AWAY FROM the words of Psalm 68:18 by seeking to change them to read “he GAVE gifts TO men” (Ephesians 4:8)

‘Paul’ also TOOK AWAY FROM the words of Psalm 68:18 by TAKING AWAY the words “THE LORD”(GOD, THE FATHER)(Psa. 68:4,5) and seeking to apply them to someone else.


The devil ‘Paul’ commands his Christian followers: “If anyone among you leads a vagabond life HE MUST BE LEFT TO STARVE…HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM…LET THEM EAT THEIR OWN BREAD” (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 Ronald Knox Roman catholic 1955 Trans.)


(Matthew 24:5. Matthew 23:8,10)

(Matt. 13:38).
” SATAN’S ANGELS were cast out FROM HEAVEN to the earth with SATAN”
(Revelation 12:9)
(Jude 4)
(Revelation 18:2).


(1 Corinthians 4:15)

(Jude 1:19)

‘Paul’ himself gave them titles:

” Apostles and prophets, fathers, pastors, evangelists and teachers…bishops, deacons,exorcists, miracle workers, speakers in unknown languages, administrators etc ”
(Eph 4:11. Phil. 1:1. 1 Corinthians 4:15).

These can be found within the *TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND* CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS and bearing the following diabolical titles:

Popes, cardinals, patriarchs, moderators, monsignors,apostles, prophets,fathers, pastors, teachers, evangelists, bishops, deacons, miracle workers, speakers in unknown tongues, exorcists, administrators etc.

(** NOTE: Barrett’s ” World-wide Encyclopedia of Christianity ” records in the 1988 edition:
” In Christianity there are in the region of 28,000 ( YES! Twenty Eight Thousand ) different denominations “(‘FACTIONS’); and further describes this as ” Sectarianism run riot “. This encyclopedia also makes the following damning statement:
“(the members of)these distinct denominations ALL HATE ONE ANOTHER”.)



JESUS said ” They neither go in themselves nor do they allow those who want to enter from going in ”
(Matt. 23:13)




(Matthew 25:31. 16:16. John 17:3. Revelation 19:16)

(John 5:22. Acts 10:42)



(Matt 7:23. Matthew 13:42.and 25:41-43,46.Jude 13).

(Matthew 23:13)



” Then JESUS’ disciples asked Him WHERE?…
(Luke 17:37)


JESUS answered ” wherever the dead body lies THERE will the VULTURES be gathered together “.
(Luke 17:37)

AT the command of the DEVIL ‘PAUL’, these BUNDLES have been DIVIDED up into
(1 Cor. 11:19).

(Jude 11,19. Matt 24:10,12.)

Within the following” FACTIONS ” of Christianity.,

Roman catholic, Greek, Coptic and Russian orthodox, Anglican, Calvinist, Lutheran, Churches of christ, Seventh day adventists, Congregational, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostals, Assemblies of god, Apostolic assemblies, Victory outreach assemblies, C.O.R.E. assemblies, Exclusive and non-exclusive Brethren assemblies, together with in excess of *TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND*’ Evangelical ‘ FACTIONS which are found within christianity.

(** NOTE: Barrett’s ” World-wide Encyclopedia of Christianity ” records in the 1988 edition:
” In Christianity there are in the region of 28,000 ( YES! Twenty Eight Thousand ) different denominations “(‘FACTIONS’); and further describes this as ” Sectarianism run riot “. This encyclopedia also makes the following damning statement:
“(the members of)these distinct denominations ALL HATE ONE ANOTHER”.)

(Roman Catholicism)…
(Thousands of christian denominations )…
(Blasphemous names, titles and practices)…
(Revelation 17:5)
(Revelation 18:2)


(Revelation 18:4).



(Matthew 10:2. Revelation 21:14)

(1) SIMON who is called PETER and (2) ANDREW his brother
(3) JAMES the son of Zebedee and (4) JOHN his brother
(7) THOMAS and (8) MATTHEW the publican
(9) JAMES the son of Alphaeus and
(10)JUDE the brother of James
(11)SIMON the canaanite and (12) MATTHIAS who replaced Judas
(Matthew 10:2-4. Acts 1:13,26)

and acknowledged by DISCIPLES OF JESUS everywhere.


The QUALIFICATIONS of a TRUE APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST were spelled out by THE APOSTLE PETER, when a successor to Judas was appointed:

” Therefore of these men who have accompanied us ALL THE TIME that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst us; BEGINNING FROM THE BAPTISM OF JOHN until that SAME DAY WHEN HE WAS TAKEN UP FROM US, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of HIS RESURRECTION”
(Acts 1:21,22 ).

(Revelation 2:2)





There are those who will vehemently defend the inerrancy of the Word of God and then completely ignore HOW it was compiled, filtered, and put together by pagans!

The Council of Nicea in 325 in Rome DECIDED for us what books would be included and what would be official church doctrine. Constantine was the ultimate approver or disprover, not a Spirit led born again believer in Jesus!   Most will claim Constantine was a believer, what they don’t tell you is that Constantine didn’t convert until he was on his deathbed! Which means the early church majority did nothing as a pagan compiled and TOLD US what doctrine was true or false!

It is the duty of every believer in Y’hoshua Jesus to go back and learn what the truth really is before Constantine corrupted the church!

Pray for truth in all things daily and seek Yah for the truth!! Not man!!



Jesus said..

Hereafter I will not talk much with you, for the prince of this world comes and has nothing in me. The thief comes not but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in Truth, because there is no Truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.” Mark 4.15, John 14.30, John 10.10, & John 8.44.

The following list cites some of the ways that Paul fulfills the role of Satan-in-the-flesh who comes immediately and takes away the Word of God that was sown in man’s heart:

  1. Paul came on the heels of our Lord when the disciples had just begun doing the works of spreading the Word that God had set before them. Paul’s assaults against, and imprisonment of, the Lord’s disciples then snatched the Truth away from the people who had only begun to hear Truth spoken through those imprisoned disciples.
  2. After Paul’s conversion, his distortion of the Lord’s Doctrine taught by the disciples immediately following the disciples’ works stole the Truth away from the people who had heard what the disciples had said but then trusted Paul’s lies.
  3. When Paul started preaching, he infuriated people so severely that they wanted to murder him. By distracting people’s attention away from hearing and adhering to the Word of God, Paul was snatching the Truth away from them.
  4. By the time the Lord’s disciples had figured out that Paul was a heavy-duty bad guy, it was too late. Christianity’s founder, Paul had already become firmly enmeshed in the Christian mind as being the Lord’s greatest apostle. Thus, even though Peter and James wrote the letter confronting Paul’s apostasy, Satan had already taken the Truth away from the Christians. Christian leaders destroyed the letter, and adamently defended Paul’s apostasy. In doing so, the Christian fathers were asserting that Paul was superior to Peter, and that Paul, not Peter, was the rock upon whom the Lord built His church.
  5. When the Bible was printed into the form of one book, Paul’s writings were inserted to the right of the Gospel. All the people who studied the Gospel and received it, but then turned to Paul’s dogma and trusted it as being authentically of God, had the Truth taken away from them by Satan Paul’s horrendous misinterpretations and misapplications of the Gospel.
  6. When we go to a Christian church and hear the Word of God spoken, the vast majority of times the priest or preacher will then attempt to interpret and override the Truth spoken by Jesus with Paul’s blasphemous dogmanure. The people who then trust their priests and preachers to be telling God’s Truth immediately experience Satan taking away their understanding of the Word of God from them.
  7. Some of the words that the Spirit of the Son of man spoke to the Old Testament prophets have been lost, polluted, twisted, and distorted by false interpretations of their writings. Such is especially true of David’s psalms. Wherever the Christian scribes and translators did not understand what was being said, they inserted words that had not been written by the prophets at all, and they did so from the position of applying Paul’s dogma to the prophets’ writings. Therein was Paul again the primary source of having the Truth snatched away from people.

Read Acts of the Antichrist


In his first letter to his Corinthian followers, ‘Paul’dared to quote from the The Prophet Jeremiah “JUST AS IT IS WRITTEN, LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”(1 Corinthians 1:31).

The Prophet Jeremiah writes “But LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST OF THIS, that he understands and knows ME, that I am THE LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,” declares the LORD”(Jeremiah 9:24)

‘Paul’dared to call on his ‘god’ SATAN,to assist him in “TRAMPLING” on “THE WORD OF THE LORD”(written in Jeremiah 9:24)

“But god forbid that I should BOAST in ANYTHING, but ONLY in the CROSS”(Galations 6:14).

With this BLASPHEMOUS ‘boast’, the devil and false apostle ‘Paul’ introduced, to mankind, “THE CROSS”, as “THE MARK OF THE BEAST” (Rev 19:20).


The devil and false apostle ‘Paul’ MISQUOTED the words of PSALM 68:18, in his infamous letter to the Ephesians where he TOOK AWAY FROM the words of 68:18 which read “HE (GOD,THE FATHER) RECEIVED gifts FROM among men” (Verse 18).
The devil ‘Paul’ CHANGED THE WORDS OF PSALM 68:18 to read “he(‘another jesus’) GAVE gifts TO men” (Ephesians 4:8) to justify his appointment of “THE TARES, THE CHILDREN OF THE EVIL ONE” (Matthew 13:25,38).

“THE EVIL ONE” ‘Paul’ gave assurances to his “TARES” that he was their father by writing to them “I (Paul) BECAME YOUR FATHER THROUGH the gospel which I preach” (1 Corinthians 4:15)


‘Paul’ himself gave them titles:

” Apostles and prophets, fathers, pastors, evangelists and teachers…bishops, deacons,exorcists, miracle workers, speakers in unknown languages, administrators etc ”
(Eph 4:11. Phil. 1:1. 1 Corinthians 4:15).

These can be found within the *TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND* CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS and bearing the following diabolical titles:

Popes, cardinals, patriarchs, moderators, monsignors, apostles, prophets, fathers, pastors, teachers, evangelists, bishops, deacons, miracle workers, speakers in unknown tongues, exorcists, administrators, priests, sisters, nuns, clergy, clergymen, ‘christian brothers’ etc.

Paul said, “For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” This is the kind of man that Christianity was based on? The whole law concerning Christianity hangs on the words of a man wholied to get your loyalty? He altered the teachings of Jesus Christ as well as remitted the laws of the Prophets (Matthew 5:17-18) He said over and over that it was ok to lie to get people to believe what you were preaching/teaching! Then he couldn’t get it! He was complaining of being judged as a sinner even if his lying was “meant” to produce good!” What Good comes from lying? Jesus said all liars would have their part in the Lake of Fire!” Now who’s right? Jesus or Paul?

‘PAUL’ wrote “Let him who BOASTS, boast of THE LORD” (1 Corinthians 1:31); which is a quotation from the Prophet Jeremiah where ALMIGHTY GOD commands those who love HIM:
“but let him who boasts BOAST of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,” declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 9:24)

‘Paul’ then TRAMPLED ON THE above word.
He (‘Paul) dared to call on his ‘god’SATAN to prevent him (Paul) from obeying the command of ALMIGHTY GOD; when he (Paul) wrote “But god forbid that I should BOAST ONLY IN THE CROSS” (Galations 6:14)

‘Paul’ TRAMPLED on the word written by the Prophet Jeremiah by EXALTING ‘the cross’ above “ALMIGHTY GOD” (Jer (9:24).
‘PAUL’ and his christian followers have, over the last two thousand years, EXALTED “THE ABOMINATION”,’the cross’ above “ALMIGHTY GOD”.
Yeshua (Jesua) the Messiah declares that “WHAT IS EXALTED AMONG MEN IS AN ABOMINATION IN THE SIGHT OF GOD”(Luke 16:15).
Yeshua (Jesus) further pointed out that this EXALTATION OF ‘the cross’ is “THE ABOMINATION WHICH DESOLATES, STANDING IN THE HOLY PLACE (IN THE PLACE OF THE HOLY FATHER) spoken by the Prophet Daniel”.

“The devil ‘Paul’ and his angels (Matthew 13:25,39. 25:46), reject the DIVINELY APPOINTED RULE OF YESHUA THE MESSIAH by declaring

These “UNGODLY”(Psalm 1:5), self proclaimed, teachers, proclaim the LIE that “YESHUA (JESUS) IS NOT THE PROPHET, MESSIAH, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF THE ONLY TRUE GOD, THE FATHER” (Deut 18:15-22. Isaiah 9:6. Psalm 2:7. John 3:16. John 17:3).

The self confessed “ungodly” followers of the devil ‘Paul’ believe his lying claim to being “the son of God”, when he wrote:
“god was pleased to reveal his son in me (Paul)”(Galations 1:7).

In fulfilment of the prophecy and warning of YESHUA THE MESSIAH, ‘Paul’ and his fellow “demons”(Matthew 13:38(b).Rev 16:14. 18:2) “showed signs and wonders”(Acts 15:12) in order to try and “deceive, if possible” the elected twelve apostles and disciples of Yeshua” (Matthew 24:24).

In fulfilment of the prophetic warning of YESHUA (JESUS), the devil ‘Paul’ and his christian fellow workers first GATHERED THEMSELVES TOGETHER in ANTIOCH before the “generation” still living at the time of Yeshua had “passed away”,(Matthew 24:34).

They very quickly travelled “Around on sea and land” (Matthew 23:15) to make more “disciples of ‘Paul'(Acts 9:19. 11:26) and made them “twice as much a son of hell”(Matthew 23:15).

Even as the “Gospel of the kingdom was being preached as a witness concerning YESHUA (JESUS), to all nations” (Matthew 24:14); even then, in the lifetime of “this generation” of the twelve apostles (Matthew 24:34), “the end came” (Matthew 24:34) when “THE DEVIL and FALSE APOSTLE ‘PAUL’ and his children “THE TARES” the popes and clergy of Christianity preached ‘another jesus’ and another gospel’.

For the last two thousand years Christians have “EXALTED” ‘the cross’ on top of their places worship; have introduced a special feast day called ‘The feast of the exaltation of the cross’ when christians worship and kiss ‘the cross’; have worn an image of ‘the cross’ around their necks as a superstitious talisman to ‘ward off evil’; BOAST that they “are saved by ‘the cross’ etc, etc.

The Christian followers receive ‘THE SIGN OF THE CROSS’ “ON their RIGHT HANDS and on their FOREHEADS”.
This SIGN OF ‘THE CROSS’ is “THE MARK OF THE BEAST” (Revelation 13:16)


Having appointed the “TARES” and EXALTED ‘the cross’ “IN THE PLACE OF GOD,THE FATHER”, Christianity, moved its headquarters to ROME, BABYLON THE GREAT (Rev 17:5) when ‘Paul’ “WENT AWAY ” (Matthew 13:25) to “ROME” as Yeshua (Jesus) prophesied.


‘Paul’ accomplished this “ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE FOR PREACHING ANTISEMITISM”(Acts 25:8) and preaching‘Another jesus’ and ‘another gospel'(2 Corinthiands 11:4),with the assistance of HEROD who arranged to have ‘Paul’ shipped to ROME under the pretext of being “a prisoner”.

Upon his arrival in ROME, “THE DRAGON”(Rev 16:13) ‘Paul’ was provided by Caesar,with a luxurious villa, from which he supervised, marshalled and disciplined his evil workers.

Whilst in ROME ‘Paul’ was also provided, by Caesar, with a Roman “soldier” (Acts 28:16) for his protection.

‘Paul’s’ Papal successors, many taking the name of ‘Paul’ at their coronation as ‘pope’, have headed up the twenty eight thousand denominations of Christianity, founded by ‘Paul’ in ANTIOCH, for the last two thousand years.

Whereas ‘Paul’ was provided with one “soldier” for his protection, every pope, also known as “THE BEAST” (Rev 16:13),is provided with a large contingent of soldiers, known as ‘The Vatican Guard’.

The papal “BEASTS” have over the last two thousand years, just like ‘Paul’, taken the name ‘pope-papa’ which is the latin word for ‘father’ and ‘vicar of christ’ which means ‘instead of Christ’.

Like ‘Paul’ these popes, blaspheme THE NAME of YHWH and THE NAME of YESHUA, THE MESSIAH; WHO ARE SEATED ON MOUNT ZION; by taking to themselves the NAMES “Holy Father” and “vicar of Christ”, at their coronation.


‘ANOTHER JESUS’preached by ‘Paul’and his Christian ministers.
Some twenty years after the “TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE LAMB, THE SONS OF GOD, THE FATHER” first began preaching “THE GOOD NEWS OF THE KINGDOM” (Matthew 24:14), the “DEVIL ‘Paul’ and “HIS ANGELS, THE SONS OF SATAN “(Matthew 13:38, 25:46) preached “another (disembodied) jesus with NO flesh and blood” (2 Corinthians 11:4. Acts 22:9. 1 Corinthians 15:20).

‘A DIFFERENT GOSPEL’preached by ‘Paul’
Instead of “THIS GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM PREACHED BY THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE LAMB IN ALL THE WORLD”(Matthew 24:14. 26:13), the “devil ‘Paul’ and his angels, by their own admission,preach “a different gospel…promting “LAWLESSNESS” (Jude 4)by saying that, according to ‘Paul’s’ gospel “all things are lawful”(2 Corinthians 11:4. 1 Corinthians 10:23).

(Luke 1:50. 23:40. Revelation 14:6,7)


“…them also who shall believe in me THROUGH THEIR WORD”.
(John 17:20)

(Revelation 14:6. Luke 1:50. John 3:16. Matthew 16:16. John 17:3. John 20:31)


(Mark 1:15. Matthew 24:14. John 17:20)

(Matthew 21:25. John 17:20)

(Luke 1:50. Deuteronomy 18:15. John 20:31).
(John 20:31. 1 John 5:1)


THE FALSE ‘gospel’


” For false Christs, and false prophets,will arise and will show great signs and wonders; so that, if it were possible, they would deceive the very elect”
(Matthew 24:24)
” For certain men have crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, UNGODLY MEN, turning the grace of our God into liscentiousness, even denying the only Lord God (The Father), and our Lord Jesus Christ(The Only Begotten son of the Father).”
(Jude 1:4)


(Matthew 13:25-50)
This FALSE ‘gospel’ is summed up in the LIES preached by the devil’Paul’ and his “UNGODLY” Christian ministers and summarised in Chapter 15 verses 1-8 in ‘Paul’s’ first infamous letter to the “UNGODLY” (Jude 4) Corinthians.



‘Paul’ wrote the LIE to those “Who HAVE NO FEAR OF GOD” (Romans 3:18); “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for OUR sins, the sins of the UNGODLY” (1 Cor 15:3. Romans 5:6).

The Word of God as recorded in Psalm 1 and Jude 4 emphasise that:
(Psalm 1:4,5 Jude 4)


‘Paul’ wrote the LIE “that Christ (first)appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve” (1 Cor. 15:5).

The Word of God as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John emphasise that Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah “FIRST” appeared to “THE WOMEN” (Matthew 28:9. Mark 16:9. Luke 24:10. John 20:14,15)
It is not therefore surprising that ‘Paul’ and his Christian ministers despise and hate women and treat them as second class citizens


‘Paul’ wrote the LIE “After that he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time” ( 1 Cor. 15:6)

The apostle Peter testifies that “the number of names ALTOGETHER were about a hundred and twenty disciples” (Acts 1:15)


‘Paul’ wrote the LIE “and last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared to me also” (1 Cor. 15:8)

Luke together with ‘Paul’s’ own testimony confirms that ‘Paul’ DID NOT SEE THE RISEN YESHUA (JESUS) but “SAW A DISEMBODIED LIGHT” (Acts 9:3. 22:9)

(Matthew 13:25,38,39. Revelation 9:2)

A female who was raised in Christianity, has been taught that:

  • We could never be good enough to serve God. And if we do it should be privately at home barefoot and pregnant and scrubbing floors!
  • What we think and feel doesn’t matter! We’re just to be slaves to men and that’s that!.
  • We ought not to express emotions of anger, because a self-assertive female was a sinner.
  • I was only here on earth to serve the wants and needs of others, especially those of my husband, children, parents, and inlaws.

Is that what Jesus taught? No!!

God does not condone preferential treatment granted to or by any humans including His prophets. Equal rights, equal access, equal freedoms, protections, and opportunities under the law are commanded by God to all people everywhere in the world regardless of race, gender, age, status, OR level of Spirituality.

Read what Jesus really taught about discrimination, this prophet hits it right on the head!


666 in Hebrew Means….

“Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.”
“Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,
but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is rightis welcome to Him”.
(Acts 10:34, 35)


they say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan

Paul the First Heretic

the excommunication of Paul

Paul, apostle or heretic?

James, Paul, and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Links From Others:

Read Acts of the Antichrist

Paul’s Epistle to the Romans Exposed




although the above links were not written by me, she hits it right on the head! Read how a recovering alcoholic finds Jesus and is shown the truth about Paul! Humorous at times, it’s packed with information! I dont’ agree with everything these sites say, but they hit Paul on the head and reveal who and what he really was.

Ok, so now you’re wondering if any of this is really true. When Yah kept leading me to this there were many times I had my doubts. So I know what you’re going through and thinking.  Yah kept bringing several of the points made on this website to my mind. He led me to people and places and books for a long time before I finally accepted it as the self evident truth that it is.  Some of the facts He kept bringing to my mind during times of doubt and questioning and prayer were these:
1. There are three different accounts of Paul’s testimony of the Damascus Road Revelation that we know of in the Scriptures (probably many more that we don’t even know of), the very words out of Paul’s mouth. All 3 were different accounts of the same event. These weren’t translation errors, they were different stories of the same event as told by PAUL. Why the differences? Because Liars can’t keep up with the truth. The Apostles didn’t believe Paul’s story and we shouldn’t either.

2. After this “divine revelation” Paul disappeared for 2 years into the wilderness to receive more and more revelations. There were never any accounts listed anywhere from any of the soldiers or witnesses who were there to confirm that this event really happened. He never sought the disciples or to learn from them Yah’s ways and teachings directly from the men who knew Yah the most.  He claimed by divine revelation the very falsehood that almost got him excommunicated from the church completely! He argued with the apostles that circumcision was no longer necessary and in Jesus would profit them nothing when circumcision was a command, a sign of the covenant Yah made with Israel! To escape excommunication, Paul relented and stopped preaching his falsehood on circumcision.  In other words, Paul’s revelation wasn’t so divine when it was held up and scrutinized in God’s Word. Paul was exposed for the fraud and liar he was! And instead of dealing with him once and for all the disciples “swept him under the rug.”

I don’t think any of the apostles realized at the time how dangerous this Paul was going to be to the church today. When they visited cities and towns Paul had preached in, they spent their time undoing the damage Paul did and setting the people straight on doctrine. In fact it got so bad the entire area of Asia completely rejected Paul! They didn’t even want to see him! When he was thrown in prison in Rome the people wouldn’t even visit him!

Yet, almost half of the New Testament today are books Paul wrote. Hindsight..would have been nice. But Yah allowed it to serve His own purposes. Just as He allowed the serpent to bequile Eve in the garden of Eden.

How many preachers today have “divine revelations” and have introduced false, heretical, and blasphemous teachings and doctrines into the churches?

Now you know where it started.

3. Some will say that through translations Paul’s words were twisted and he was made to look bad by the transcribers themselves. For this, I refer you to point #1 and #2.