Trinitarian scholars admit it!
Taken from the book, "What did Jesus Really Say?"
In "The New Catholic Encyclopedia" (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating official approval) we get a glimpse of how the concept of the Trinity was not introduced into Christianity until close to four hundred years after Jesus (pbuh):

".......It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought ... it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development" (emphasis added). "The New Catholic Encyclopedia" Volume XIV, p. 295.

They admit it! Jesus' twelve apostles lived and died never having heard of any "Trinity"!

Did Jesus leave his closest and dearest followers so completely and utterly baffled and lost that they never even realized the "true" nature of God? Did he leave them in such black darkness that neither they nor their children, nor yet their children's children would ever come to recognize the "true" nature of the One they are to worship? Do we really want to allege that Jesus was so thoroughly incompetent in the discharge of his duties that he left his followers in such utter chaos that it would take them fully three centuries after his departure to finally piece together the nature of the One whom they are to worship? Why did Jesus never, even once, just say "God, the Holy Ghost and I are three Persons in one Trinity. Worship all of us as one"? If he had only chosen to make just one such explicit statement to them he could have relieved Christianity of centuries of bitter disputes, division, and animosity.

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

In "The Dictionary of the Bible," John L. McKenzie, S.J., p. 899  bearing the Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, and Imprimi Potest (official Church seals of approval), we read: "the trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. That belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief."

And also:

"According to orthodox Christian doctrine, God is one nature in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No one of them precedes or created the others or stands above them in power or dignity. In precise theological terms, they are one in substance (or essence), coeternal, and coequal. The doctrine so stated does not appear in Scripture, … The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out gradually over a period of three centuries or more…Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the coeternity and coequality of the divine persons remained a matter of theological dispute, and so are frequently discussed in the context of heresy… In 381 the bishops convened again at Constantinople and set forth the orthodox doctrine in its final form" A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, David Lyle Jeffrey, p. 785

"Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon … While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do."The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, p. 782

"In the Old Testament, the Unity of God was clearly affirmed. The Jewish creed, repeated in every synagogue today, was 'Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord (Deut. 6:4). This was the faith of the first Christians, so Paul writes, 'There is one God and Father of all, Who is above all and through all and in you all" (Eph. 4:6). But gradually some addition or modification of this creed was found necessary. Christians were fully persuaded of the Deity of Jesus Christ and later of the Deity of the Holy Spirit, and they were compelled to relate these convictions with their belief in the Unity of God. During many years, the problem was discussed and many explanations were attempted. One advanced by Sabellius, that became fairly popular was that Christ and the Holy Spirit were successive manifestations of the Supreme Being, but finally, the belief prevailed that the words Father, Son, Spirit, declared eternal distinctions in the Godhead. That is, that the Trinity of Manifestation revealed a Tri-unity of Being. In other words,' that Christ and the Holy Spirit were coeternal with the Father. With the exceptions of the Unitarians, this is the belief of Christendom today" Christadelphianism, F. J. Wilkin, M.A., D.D, The Australian Baptist, Victoria.

Amazing! In spite of his belief in the doctrine of the "trinity," Mr. Wilkin has just himself admitted that the doctrine should not be sought after in the Bible, nor did the disciples of Jesus preach it, and that those who accepted it did not get it from the Bible, rather they started out with their own preconceived concepts and then did their best to make the Bible endorse their preconceptions, and finally, that it was only "adopted" by the Church after many years of contention and experimentation, because members were "fully persuaded of the Deity of Jesus Christ, and later of the Deity of the Holy Spirit."

When Jesus was on earth, Judaism was the only purely monotheistic religion in the region, having become surrounded by endless waves of "trinities" from the surrounding nations of the Romans, Greeks, Babylonians and Egyptians. So, why did Jesus (pbuh) chose to allow the very first generations after him to remain steeped in ignorance and division, to live and die never having heard of any "trinity," and only choose to bring enlightenment to the creed-writers and neo-platonic philosophers of the fourth century CE?

The Encyclopaedia Britannica states under the heading "Trinity": "in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament,… The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is 'of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,' even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."

Let us conclude this section with a very eloquent example which was once presented by the British scholar Richard Porson. One day, Porson was discussing the "Trinity" with a Trinitarian friend when a buggy containing three men passed by.

"There," Porson's friend exclaimed "is an illustration of the Trinity."

Porson replied "No, you must show me one man in three buggies, if you can."


 
 
 


 
 

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

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

Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again: "And your God is One God: There is no God but He, ..." (The Qur'an 2:163)

Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and without the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - in one divine being.

If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter:

"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be save must thus think of the Trinity..."(excerpts from the Athanasian Creed)
Let's put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father + one person, God the Son + one person, God the Holy Ghost = one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?

It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.

How did such a confusing doctrine get its start?
 

Trinity in the Bible

References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.

In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. While the "Great Commission" does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text - that is, not the actual words of Jesus - as can be seen by two factors:

  • Baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and
  • The "Great Commission" found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost - see Mark 16:15.
    • The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of I John 5:7, Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase "...there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is definitely a "later addition" to Biblical test, and it is not found in any of today's versions of the Bible.

    It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.
     

    The Doctrine Takes Shape

    While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a "divine Son." After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God's revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.

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

    A Formal Doctrine is Drawn Up

    When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria - Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop - Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.

    Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.

    Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
     

    The Church Puts Its Foot Down

    The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism" became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who did not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.

    It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.
     

    Debate Continues

    Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.

    The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than "I believe it because I was told to do so." It is explained away as "mystery" - yet the Bible says in I Corinthians 14:33 that "... God is not the author of confusion..."

    The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the preachings of Jesus: "...Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:8)
     

    Islam and the Matter of the Trinity

    While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam.

    "They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God." (Qur'an 5:73) It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name "Allah" as the name of God.

    Suzanne Haneef, in her book WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ISLAM AND MUSLIMS (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says, "But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in." (pp. 183-184)

    Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.

    Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity - God being Three-in-One - is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three.

    This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Qur'an sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title "Mother of God" by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verse in the Qur'an most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Qur'an as a "member" of the Trinity, is simply not true.

    While the Qur'an does condemn both trinitarianism (the Qur'an 4:17) and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary (the Qur'an 5:116), nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Qur'an is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.

    In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Qur'an, God's Final Revelations to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:

    "...your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner." (Qur'an 18:110)

    "...take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected." (Qur'an 17:39)

    ...Because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout All His Revealed Scriptures:
    "...I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other)..." (Qur'an 21:92)

    For more information please contact:

    The Institute of Islamic Information and Education
    P.O. Box 41129
    Chicago, IL 60641-0129 U.S.A.
    Tel. (312) 777-7443, Fax. (312) 777-7199

    III&E Brochure Series; No. 22(published by The Institute of Islamic Information and Education (III&E) and reproduced with permission)
     

     
     
     
     

     

    Anglican bishops declare that Jesus is not God
    Taken from the book, "What did Jesus Really Say?"
    Muslims are not the only ones who believe that Jesus (pbuh) is mortal and not a god. The Jews also believe this, in addition to the very first groups of Christianity such as the Ebonites, the Cerinthians, the Basilidians, the Capocratians, and the Hypisistarians. The Arians, Paulicians and Goths also accepted Jesus (pbuh) as a prophet of God. Even in the modern age there are churches in Asia, in Africa, the Unitarian church, the Jehovah's witnesses, and even the majority of today's Anglican Bishops do not worship Jesus (pbuh) as God.

    In the British newspaper the "Daily News" 25/6/84 under the heading "Shock survey of Anglican Bishops" We read "More than half of England's Anglican Bishops say that Christians are not obliged to believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey published today. The pole of 31 of England's 39 bishops shows that many of them think that Christ's miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection might not have happened exactly as described in the Bible. Only 11 of the bishops insisted that Christians must regard Christ as both God and man, while 19 said it was sufficient to regard Jesus as 'God's supreme agent'"

    But what is a messenger of God? Is he not "God's supreme agent" ?. This is indeed what God Himself has already told us in the noble Qur'an 1400 years ago, and exactly what Jesus (pbuh) himself testified to in the Bible:

    "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3

    Astounding, isn't it? With every passing day, the most learned among the Christian community are slowly recognizing the truth and drawing closer and closer to Islam. These are not Muslims who issued this statement. These are not "liberal" Christians. These are the most learned and most highly esteemed men of the Anglican Church. These men have dedicated their whole lives to the study of the religion of Jesus, and their study has driven them to the truth which God had already revealed to them in the Qur'an 1400 years ago: That Jesus was not God. That God is not a Trinity. And that the stories of the ministry of Jesus in the Bible have been extensively tampered with by the hands of mankind.

    "And when Allah said: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he said: Be You glorified. It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then You knew it. You know what is in my [innermost] self but I know not what is in Yours. Truly! You, only You are the Knower of things hidden. I spoke unto them only that which You commanded me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness over them while I dwelt among them, and when You took me You were the Watcher over them, and You are Witness over all things." The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):116-118

    The Church, as Heinz Zahrnt put it "put words into the mouth of Jesus which he never spoke and attributed actions to him which he never performed." One of those who has shown that most of what the church says about Jesus is baseless is Rudolph Augustein in his book "Jesus the Son of Man."

    Another very comprehensive study of this matter can be found in the book "The Myth of God Incarnate" which was written by seven theologian scholars in England in 1977 and edited by John Hick. Their conclusion in this matter is that Jesus was "a man approved by God, for a special role within the divine purpose, and..... the later conception of him as God incarnate ... is a mythological or poetic way of expressing his significance for us."

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

    A University of Richmond professor, Dr. Robert Alley, after considerable research into newly found ancient documents concludes that "....The (Biblical) passages where Jesus talks about the Son of God are later additions.... what the church said about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have been consistent with his entire lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the first three decades after Jesus' death Christianity continued as a sect within Judaism. The first three decades of the existence of the church were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they (the followers) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus."

    Is there any confirmation of this in the Bible, yes! If we were to read the Bible we would find that long after the departure of Jesus, his faithful followers continued to "keep up their daily attendance at the Temple" (Acts 2:46) It would be beyond belief to imagine that had Jesus indeed preached to his apostles that he was God, and if Jesus had indeed commanded them to forsake the commandments, that they would then disregard all of this and continue to worship in a Jewish synagogue on a daily basis, let alone the great Temple itself. It is further beyond belief that the Jews of the Temple would stand idly by and allow them to do this if they were preaching the total cancellation of the law of Moses and that Jesus was God.

    Can any Trinitarian Christian, even in their wildest fantasies, imagine that the Jews in an orthodox Jewish synagogue would stand idly by while he took out his cross and prayed to Jesus in the midst of their synagogue and was publicly calling others to worship Jesus and forsake the commandments? How much more preposterous to imagine that they would have nothing to say to someone who did that in their most sacred of all synagogues, the Temple, on a daily basis yet. This is further evidence in support of the Qur'an, that Jesus only called his followers to a continuation of the religion of Moses and not by any means to the total cancellation and destruction of that law.

    In the previous section, we read the following verses of the Bible:
     

    Now we should begin to ask ourselves: If there was no god before or after God Almighty, then how was Jesus (pbuh) "begotten" as a god? The answer is: he was not. He was a mortal man, not a god. We even have the testimony of the majority of today's Anglican Bishopsin defense of this basic truth. If we want the testimony of a trustworthy witness then how much more trustworthy a witness shall we ever find than the majority of the most learned and respected conservative Christians of the Anglican Church?

    The Bible only preaches that Jesus is God and that God is a Trinity to those who do not know it's innermost details and the truth of the history of the Church as these men have come to know it. But let us move on in our study of the Biblical verses so that we can see only a small sampling of the evidence that has made the truth clear to these men.

     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Was God ignorant and savage?
    Taken from the book, "What did Jesus Really Say?"

    The Bible describes Jesus (pbuh) as follows: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature." Luke 2:52 and "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." Hebrews 5:8

    If Jesus is God and they are not two separate gods, then did God start out as an ignorant and savage god and then become a learned (wisdom) and prestigious (stature) god? Does God have to learn? Does God start out savage and increase in stature? Does God need to learn obedience to God? If there is only one God in existence, and this god is a "Trinity" with three faces: God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost (required by Isaiah 43:10-11 and countless other verses), then is Jesus (pbuh) learning obedience to another side of his own personality?

    If as we are constantly told, God Jesus and the Holy Ghost are ONE God, and if God surrendered some of His godly attributes and became man, then did He also surrender His knowledge and become ignorant, and His stature and become savage? Did He have to rebuild His knowledge and His stature from scratch?

    Mr. Tom Harpur says: "In fact, if you read Mark's whole Gospel carefully you will discover that the disciples were far from recognizing the divinity later attributed to Jesus. The very ones who should have been most able to see through the 'disguise' are at times depicted as dull-witted and even downright stupid....Some scholars, indeed, have calculated that Mark deliberately showed the disciples in a rather bad light because he was conscious of a serious problem. If Jesus was the Son of God in the later; more orthodox sense, how was it that his closest associates - the witnesses of his miracles and the confidants of his deepest teachings - never knew who he was until well after the resurrection?" For Christ's Sake, pp. 59.

    Remember, most Christian scholars today recognize that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used the "Gospel of Mark" as the source document from which they obtained their material.

    In Grolier's encyclopedia, under the heading "Mark, Gospel According to", we read: "Mark is the second Gospel in the New Testament of the Bible. It is the earliest and the shortest of the four Gospels. ...Much material in Mark is repeated in Matthew and in Luke, leading most scholars to conclude that Mark was written first and used independently by the other writers"

    Well, what then is the Islamic perspective on all of this? Islam teaches that God does not need to lower Himself in order to display His love and mercy for humanity, rather, He retains His glory, majesty and sovereignty and then raises humanity:

    "Allah will exalt those who have believed from among you, and those who have been granted knowledge, to high ranks. And Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do." The noble Qur'an, Al-Mujadila(58):11

    "Whosoever desires honor, power and glory, then [let them know that] to Allah belongs all honor, power and glory. To Him ascends the good word, and the righteous deed does raise it; but those who plot iniquities, theirs will be an awful doom; and the plotting of such (folk) will come to naught." The noble Qur'an, Fatir (35):10
     
     


     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    But he must be God, he was lifted up
    Taken from the book, "What did Jesus Really Say?"

    A Christian gentleman from Canada once quoted John 3:14-15 in an attempt to prove that Jesus (pbuh) died and was resurrected. The actual words are: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.."

    If we are to conclude that the act of God raising someone up is a sign that that person is a god or God Himself then we need to wonder how we shall then interpret the fact that God also raised Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) and Enoch (Genesis 5:24) neither of which, according to the Bible and the consensus of the Christian scholars, died natural deaths but were instead "raised up" or "taken" by God because of their piety, uprightness, and their "walking with God."

    Further, anyone who would simply read the above verses carefully will notice that they never mention either a "crucifixion" or a "resurrection." They also do not mention an "original sin" or an "atonement." They do not even mention a "Son of God." So, what do they say? They say exactly what Muslims say: That Jesus (pbuh) was not forsaken by God to the Jews, but was raised by God!

    "And because of their saying (in boast): We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but a similitude of that was shown to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, except the following of conjecture. For surely; they killed him not. But Allah raised him up unto Himself, and Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise" The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):157-158.

    This is what the "Gospel of Barnabas" says too. If you were to read the Gospel of Barnabas, you would find that when Jesus (pbuh) was allegedly crucified, all of the faithful were weeping in the streets and they began to have serious doubts about his truthfulness and his true prophethood.

    They said "Jesus told us that he would not die until just before the end of time. Now he has been crucified by his enemies. Was he a liar?" (by the way, Muslims also believe that Jesus, pbuh, will return to earth just before the end of time and will guide mankind to the final message of God. The message of Islam).

    The same Gospel then goes on to describe how Jesus (pbuh) returned a few days later with four angels to the house of his mother Mary (pbuh) and was seen by the apostles. He described how God had saved him from the hands of the Jews, and had made it so that Judas resembled him and was taken in his place. He told them that those who believe in him must believe that everything he had preached to them was true. If they believed that he was raised by God and not forsaken to the Jews to be crucified, then they would have eternal life. Is this not what the verses say?


     
     
     
     
     
     
     

     

    Because he performed miracles?
    Taken from the book, "What did Jesus Really Say?"

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

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

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

    Elijah is said to have raised the dead, and made a bowl of flour and a jar of oil inexhaustible for many days (1 Kings 17:22 and 14.)

    To say nothing of Moses (pbuh) and his countless miracles. Of his parting of the sea, of his changing of a stick into a serpent, of his changing of water into blood, ..etc.

    And so forth......

    Even Jesus (pbuh) himself tells us that miracles by themselves do not prove anything:

    "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect" Matthew 24:24

    So even false Christs can supply great wonders and miracles of such magnitude that even the most knowledgeable among men shall be deceived.

    Jesus (pbuh) had a beginning (the begetting) and an end ("and he gave up the ghost") Melchizedec, however, is said to have had no beginning of days nor end of life but was "made like unto the Son of God" !.

    "For this Melchizedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils." Hebrews 7:1-4

    Solomon is said to have been with God at the beginning of time before all of creation, Proverbs 8:22-31.

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

    So we see that even the apostle of Jesus (pbuh), Peter "the Rock,"* bore witness many years after the departure of Jesus not that Jesus was "God, the Son of God, who did miracles through his Omnipotence," rather, he openly bore witness before all those present that Jesus was "a man." He then went on to make sure that the masses would not be mislead by Jesus' miracles into thinking that he was more than a man by emphasizing that it was not Jesus who did the miracles, rather, just as was the case with countless other prophets before him, it was God Himself who did these miracles and that God's prophets are simply the tools through which He performed His miracles. In other words, the point that Peter was trying to drive home to these people was for them to remember that just as Moses' parting of the seas did not make him God or the son of God, and just as Elisha's raising of the dead did not make him God or the son of God, so too was the case with Jesus.

    What was the goal behind the performance of these miracles? Let us read John 11:42 where we find that just before Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, he made a point of making sure that the crowd would not misunderstand what he was about to do or why he did it, so he publicly stated before God while they were listening that, just as was the case with all previous prophets, the reason why he was given these miracles was in order to prove that God had sent Him and he was a true prophet:

    "And I knew that Thou hearest me always; but because of the people standing around I said it, that they may believe that Thou didst send Me.".John 11:42

    back