| small giant 2008-02-17, 9:25 am |
| Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD" Isaiah 1:18
Christians believe that Jesus (pbuh) came to teach all of mankind the
religion of God and to show them the path to salvation. All mankind is
therefore required to follow his message and only those who believe in
the crucifixion and the redemption will be saved. They believe that
the Jews are also required to convert to Christianity since Jesus was
sent to them, therefore, they are the most qualified people to
recognize the word of God and the signs of Jesus (pbuh) to be found in
their own book. Most Jews, on the other hand, tell us that Jesus
(pbuh) was not a messenger of God, but rather a false prophet, a
sorcerer, an offspring of adulterers, and many other allegations. They
claim that there are no prophesies of Jesus (pbuh) in their book and
that he was not the promised Messiah/Christ (anointed one). Their
Messiah is yet to come. For this reason, they claim that they are not
required by God to follow Jesus (pbuh) and were justified in killing
him.
Muslims believe in both Moses and Jesus (pbut) as true prophets of
God. We believe that both Moses and Jesus as well as Noah, Abraham,
Jacob, and all the rest of the prophets of God were all truthful
messengers as well as faithful and faultless servants of Allah
Almighty. We also believe in the miracles of Jesus (pbuh), including
his miraculous birth. Muslims believe that each time a messenger of
God would pass away, mankind would begin to slowly fall back upon
their evil deeds until they had managed to corrupt His original
message. When this would happen, God Almighty would send a new prophet
to renew His original message to these people and return them to the
straight path. In this manner, the true message of Allah would always
be available to all those who searched for it until the day of
judgment. This can be seen in the Bible in such verses as Matthew
5:17-18 we read:
"Think not that I (Jesus) am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled, Fulfillment of Law of
Moses."
The Jews know God as "Elohiym" or "Yahweh." The Christians know Him as
"God," or "Father," or "Jehovah," etc.. Muslims know him as
"Allah" (and more than 99 other venerable names). Muslims believe that
Allah Almighty did not send down many messages to mankind but only
one: The religion of submission to His will, the uniqueness of
Himself, and the knowledge that He is the only one worthy of worship.
The details of the religion were molded to suite each individual
people, but the message was one message: "Allah is One. Worship Him
alone!" This is made apparent in the verse of Aal-Umran(3):84 which
states that which means:
"Say (O Muhammad): We believe in Allah, and that which is sent down
unto us, and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and
Isaac, and Jacob, and the sons of Jacob, and that which was vouchsafed
unto Moses and Jesus and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no
distinction between any of them and unto Him we have surrendered."
Also, in Al-Nisaa(5):138 we read that which means
"O you who believe! Believe in Allah and His messenger, and the
Scripture (Qur'an) which he has revealed unto His messenger, and the
Scripture which He revealed aforetime. Whosoever disbelieves in Allah
and His angels and His Scriptures and His messengers and the last day,
he verily has wandered far astray."
Muslims are told in the Qur'an that the unscrupulous few had managed
to pervert the words of God Almighty sent down to Jesus (pbuh) and the
previous prophets after the passing of their prophets. The well
meaning masses were then misled by what was claimed to be 100% the
"inspiration" of God. The changes made by these people have resulted
in countless contradictions between the verses. As we shall soon see,
these contradictions and changes have been well recognized and
documented in the West for centuries now. However, their actions have
been excused because they are assumed to have been well meaning and
were only trying to clarify that which was obscure and so forth when
they changed the word of God (See chapter 2). Whatever their motives,
these apologists forget the command of Deuteronomy 4:2
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye
diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD
your God."
The liberties mankind has taken with God's previous scriptures is one
of the reasons why God sent down the Qur'an as His last message to
mankind and took it upon Himself this time to personally preserve it
for all time from corruption or modification
Professor Arthur J. Arberry writes:
"Apart from certain orthographical modifications of the originally
somewhat primitive method of writing, intended to render unambiguous
and easy the task of reading the recitation, the Koran (Qur'an) as
printed in the twentieth century is identical with the Koran as
authorized by Uthman more than 1300 years ago."
On the other hand, Mr. C.G. Tucker says:
"...Thus Gospels were produced which clearly reflected the conception
of the practical needs of the community for which they were written.
In them the traditional material was used, but there was no hesitation
in altering it or making additions to it, or in leaving out what did
not serve the writer's purpose."
"The history of the Christians in the light of modern knowledge," C.
G. Tucker, p. 320
Mr. C.J. Cadoux has the following to say in his book "The life of
Jesus" :
"In the four Gospels, therefore, the main documents to which we must
go if we are to fill-out at all that bare sketch which we can put
together from other sources, we find material of widely differing
quality as regards credibility. So far-reaching is the element of
uncertainty that it is tempting to 'down tools' at once, and to
declare the task hopeless. The historical inconsistencies and
improbabilities in parts of the Gospels form some of the arguments
advanced in favor of the Christ-myth theory. These are, however,
entirely outweighed- as we have shown- by other considerations. Still
the discrepancies and uncertainties that remain are serious- and
consequently many moderns who have no doubt whatever of Jesus' real
existence, regard as hopeless any attempt to dissolve out of the
historically-true from the legendary or mythical matter which the
Gospels contain, and to reconstruct the story of Jesus' mission out of
the more historical residue."
Reverend Dr. Davies says:
"But to come to realities, no serious modern scholar believes that the
speeches appearing in the New Testament are verbatim records of what
the speaker said. Even as conservative a scholar as Headlam has to
admit that the speeches are 'in a sense' - he does not say what sense
- the author's 'own composition.' ... Schmidel, in his article on Acts
in the Encyclopedia Biblica, says unreservedly that 'it is without
doubt that the author constructed [the speeches] in each case
according to his own conception of the situation.' Schweitzer thinks
the speeches in Acts may be 'based upon traditions of speeches ...
actually delivered, but in the form in which we have them they
doubtless belong to the author of Acts and are adapted to his
representation of the facts," Rev. Davies goes on to quote Thucydides
who admits that "..[assigning fictitious speeches to Biblical
characters] was the universal ancient custom."
"The First Christian," Reverend Dr. Davies, pp. 23-24
Prof. J.R. Drummelow says:
"A copyist would sometimes put in not what was in the text, but what
he thought ought to be in it. He would trust a fickle memory, or he
would make the text accord with the views of the school to which he
belonged. In addition to the versions and quotations from the
Christian Fathers, nearly four thousand Greek MSS of the Testament,
were known to exist. As a result , the variety of reading is
considerable."
"Commentary on the Holy Bible," page 16
Not long after my arrival in the United States, I had the pleasure of
meeting a Christian gentleman who shall henceforth be referred to only
as Mr. J. Unlike this lowly author, Mr. J. is a "professional"
Christian. He also has a history of strong evangelical activity, at
least with the Muslim students of our university. Mr. J made himself
known to us through written letters to us, calls to our Muslim
chaplain, and his appearance before us on other occasions wherein he
called upon us to believe in Jesus (pbuh) and to accept his sacrifice.
Mr. J. had sent our Muslim chaplain and myself books with many
allegations against the Qur'an and a general condemnation of it. A
series of friendly discussions ensued between us and we have since
come to know each other quite well and have managed to remain friendly
and outgoing towards one another even with our differing beliefs.
However, the fact that this author is not a professional religious
person or a professional preacher, but rather a simple science
student, has made it necessary to schedule these matters around other
more immediate scholarly concerns. It was first and foremost the will
of Allah, then the continuous efforts of Mr. J., his claims regarding
Islam, and his sincere efforts to convert me and grant me salvation
which compelled me to step up my research of the Bible and the Qur'an
and ultimately, publish this book. I therefore thank Allah Almighty
that he sent Mr. J. to me as a blessing from Himself for me, and
hopefully for many others.
Before this book was written, I had published a series of articles in
a local publication which had been progressing slowly from exhibiting
some of the more minor examples of human modification to the Bible,
such as the fact that the authors of the Bible are not who they claim
to be, and had been working up to more fundamental issues. Mr. J asked
us to publish his counter viewpoint in our publication and we
accepted.
Mr. J believed that the examples of contradictory statements in the
Bible which we had been jointly discussing did not in any way affect
the founding beliefs of Christianity (see examples in chapter two). He
provided me with literature by men such as Mr. F.F. Bruce stating such
things as
"....Does it matter whether the New Testament documents are reliable
or not? Is it so very important that we should be able to accept them
as truly historical records?"
and also"......the story of Jesus as it has come down to us may be
myth or legend, but the teaching ascribed to him- whether he was
actually responsible for it or not - has a value all it's own," and so
forth.
Muslims know for a fact that Jesus (pbuh) was neither a myth nor a
legend but a true prophet of God, but we do feel that an inspired book
of God should contain no contradictions, historical or otherwise. For
this reason we do not believe that his book has reached us as it was
originally submitted by him.
Mr. J believes that such matters as knowing the true authors of the
books of the Bible are not crucial to a Christian's faith and
challenged us to prove that a Christian's basic faith is at all in
error and not the same message preached by Jesus 2000 years ago. In
compliance with his request, he was sent four very brief questions
concerning the founding beliefs of Christianity. He was then asked to
provide carefully researched and weighed answers to these questions.
These four questions are presented below. They have been slightly
modified in this book in order to ensure that they are as clear as
possible. The basic questions, however, remain the same:
1. IS THERE A TRINITY? If so then please present us with as many
Biblical references as you possibly can and briefly explain it's
fundamental concept. What I mean by this question is: Is God one,
period? Or is God three, period? Or is He some combination of one and
three? Please write down a brief but clear description of the nature
of the Trinity and the exact relationship of each of it's three
members to one-another. Please do not move on until you have done so
since your definition shall have to stand up to the test of the Bible
and be endorsed rather than refuted by the Biblical verses we shall be
studying throughout this book.
1. Is the great and faithful messenger of Allah, Jesus the son of Mary
(peace be upon them both), the PHYSICAL SON OF ALLAH OR NOT? If he is,
then give us as many biblical references as you possibly can. If not
then why does the majority of Christendom believe that he is the
physical/begotten/sired son of Allah?
1. Did Jesus (pbuh) HIMSELF ever say in the Bible "I am a god!," or
"Worship me!"? If so then give us as many Biblical references as
possible. If not, then why does the majority of Christendom believe
that he is a god (not a mortal), and the son of? Jesus (pbuh) is
invoked daily as God to forgive sins, cast out devils, and generally
sought after in prayer. UPON WHO'S AUTHORITY do Christians believe
that Jesus (pbuh) is God? Jesus (pbuh) himself or others? Give as many
references as possible.
1. If it can be proven, through the Bible, that Jesus (pbuh) is not
God, nor the physical/begotten/sired son of God, neither is there any
Trinity, then will this prove that the unscrupulous few have corrupted
the word of God or not?
"Faith" is without a doubt one of the most basic and fundamental
ingredients in the doctrine of any religious belief. However, when you
wish someone to believe in a given fundamental doctrine which you
propose, it is first necessary to prove the validity of your assertion
before you can ask that person to "have faith." In other words, faith
is indeed important, however, it can not precede the proof. Once the
proof has been established, only then can faith come into play. This
is indeed what prophet Jesus (pbuh) taught his followers during his
lifetime. Jesus (pbuh) did not simply show up before the Jews one day
and demand that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and everyone else accept him
without proof. Rather, he performed many miracles for them and at the
same time reasoned with them and used logic to convince them. The
Bible is full of examples of how Jesus (pbuh) would go out of his way
to explain things to his followers, reason with them and prove his
case to them.
Obviously, when we ask for proof that a given person taught a given
doctrine, the very first place to look for proof of this claim is the
words of that person himself. If I believe that Jesus (pbuh) taught a
given fundamental doctrine such as the Trinity, the "Son of God," the
"original sin," or the "atonement," then not only would I be justified
in expecting him to have mentioned it at least once throughout his
whole ministry, but I would expect him to have spoken of practically
nothing else. For this reason, the above four questions have been
proposed in order to arrive at the command of Jesus (pbuh). If Jesus
did indeed ever command that I should worship a Trinity or that I
should believe that he is God, then I would expect him to say so
clearly at least once in his whole life. If he says it at least once
then others shall be justified in repeating it a thousand times.
However, I want to first know ...
What did Jesus really say?
The Bible says:
"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my
words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and
make our abode with him."
John 14:23
Jesus (peace be upon him) clearly outlines here that it is his words
that we must keep and that shall lead to the love of God. Naturally, I
wish to know what Jesus said so that I might follow his command, and
his alone. Every one else's words without exception shall then be
either accepted or rejected based upon their conformance to the words
of the great and pious messenger of Allah, Jesus the son of Mary. Does
this sound fair?
The Christian world has performed a very admirable job in providing us
with Bibles in practically every size, language, shape and color.
Among these Bibles are the series of Bibles titled the "Red letter
editions." These Bibles are set apart from more conventional Bibles in
that the words of Jesus are distinguished from the rest of the text by
writing them in red ink. This makes the process of locating the words
of Jesus and differentiating them from those of everyone else much
simpler for the reader. Our goal in this book is to find evidence in
the RED ink of where Jesus (pbuh) himself ever taught mankind any of
the fundamental concepts of the religion which has been attributed to
him and which is named "Christianity". We shall see in what follows
that whenever someone tries to validate such doctrines they always
attempt to do so with the words in the BLACK ink and never the ones in
RED ink.
Muslims are told in the Qur'an that Jesus (pbuh) was one of the most
pious and elect messengers of God Almighty for all time. However, we
are also told that he was not himself a god, nor the physical son of
God. We read in the Qur'an:
"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
Obviously, both claims can not be true. Either Jesus (pbuh) did indeed
command mankind to worship him or he did not. Since my level of
knowledge of the words of the Bible obviously can not compare with
that of Mr. J., therefore, I was hoping that he could demonstrate to
me where Jesus actually said any of these things. Since the issues of
the Trinity, the Son of God, the original sin, and the atonement
comprise the most fundamental differences in belief between the
Islamic and Christian faith, therefore, I had hoped that in answering
these four very brief questions it might be possible to once and for
all arrive at the true command of Jesus. Mr. J's response follows:
1.1 Christian perspective
It is my great privilege and pleasure to have been invited to address
the readers [of this publication] on some of the most important
distinctions between Christianity and Islam. Four questions have been
proposed as a means of clarifying the Biblical perspective in relation
to the series of articles on Jesus and Christianity that appeared last
semester.
As I see it, all four questions essentially come together in one basic
question: Who is Jesus? The answer to that question, and the heart of
the message that has been proclaimed by followers of Jesus since His
advent, is that "you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God, and that by believing you may have life in His name." (John
20:31).
Addressing each of these questions may now help clarify this historic
Christian conviction.
1. Is there a Trinity?
The Biblical teaching of God's essential nature, summarized in the
word "Trinity," rests largely on our understanding of the identity of
Jesus, a question I will take up in some length under question #3.
At this point, perhaps a demonstration that the terminology for the
doctrine of the Trinity is found throughout the New Testament:
* "therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit..." (Matthew 28:19).
* "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are
different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different
kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men." (I
Corinthians 12:4-6).
* "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and
the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (II Corinthians
13:14).
* "But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith
and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait
for the mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal
life." (Jude 20-21).
The doctrine of the Trinity is perhaps best understood in terms of
Christian salvation. Christians believe that God the Father wills that
we be reconciled to Him from sin, and that He sent the Son, Who in His
perfect life and substitutionary death provides the basis of that
reconciliation, and that the Father now, in Jesus' name, sends the
Holy Spirit, Who applies the salvation of Jesus to the Christian
believers, thus saving them and empowering them to live lives of
victory over sin. Thus is the Christian's experience and assurance of
salvation in terms of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet
they absolutely believe that there is only one God. How do we put this
together? This is where the word "Trinity" comes in. It expresses this
truth about God as it is found in the Bible.
This is certainly not an exhaustive explanation, but it may help to
demonstrate the significance of the doctrine in practical Christian
life.
2. Is Jesus the physical (begotten/sired) son of GodSon of God?
Jesus is presented in the New Testament as the Son of God by virtue of
His unique eternal relationship with the Father and by means of His
unique virgin birth. We need to understand, then, how Jesus is the Son
of God. The New Testament tells us how:
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about : His mother Mary was
pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she
was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her
husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public
disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him
in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take
Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the
Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the
name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. (Matthew
1:18-21).
The question as stated implies that Jesus is somehow the result of a
physical union between God and Mary, but this is not at all the case.
Jesus' birth is a miraculous event through the agency of the Holy
Spirit. Thus the Son's deity is incarnated, or made flesh; in this
Jesus is the "God-man"
Begotten is the old English word that, while in human terms means to
have a child, the emphasis even there is that what a human father
"begets' shares in the essential nature of that father. It is in this
sense that the King James translates the Greek word monogenes as
"begotten ; Jesus shares the essential nature of the Father, but
rather through some physical act, but a supernatural one.
3. Did Jesus Himself ever say in the Bible "I am God!" or "worship
me!"?
What makes Jesus stand out from all other religious figures is the
nature of His claims about Himself. He claims the prerogatives of God,
the rightful object of a person's supreme allegiance, and receives
with out censure the worship and obedience of those who believe.
A number of examples may help to illustrate this:
A. Forgiveness of sins
In Mark 2:1-12, we read the account of Jesus healing a crippled man.
What is so surprising, and so shocking to His original audience, is
the statement that Jesus makes before healing the man.
As Jesus sees a group of men bring the paralytic to Him, Mark records
the scene:
When Jesus saw their faith , he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins
are forgiven."
Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to
themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming!
Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Immediately Jesus knew in his
spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he
said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to
say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up,
take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has
authority on earth to forgive sins..." He said to the paralytic, "I
tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." He got up, took his mat
and walked out in full view of them all.
B. Titles
Jesus in the Gospels appropriates two significant titles throughout
His ministry:
1. The Son of Man
This is the title that Jesus Himself uses most frequently. It is a
Messianic title derived from the Old Testament book of Daniel. When we
read the passage in Daniel, the implicit claim that Jesus is making
about Himself becomes apparent:
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 (the son of man) was given
authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men 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).
2. The Son of God
At His trial Jesus affirmed this title: Again the high priest asked
him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said
Jesus. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of
the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven. (Mark 14:61-63).
C. Jesus' direct claims
At the climax of a lengthy argument, Jesus speaks of Himself: "Your
father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and
was glad." "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him,
"and you have seen Abraham!" "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered,
"before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to
stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple
grounds." (John 8:56-59).
The shock of this claim are those two words "I am." It is the same
designation that God used for Himself in His call to Moses: 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).
D. Jesus receives worship
Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, Jesus
said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" "Who is he, sir?" the man
asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him.." Jesus said, "You have
now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.." Then the man
said, "Lord. I believe," and he worshipped him." (John 9:35-38).
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus
had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him...
(Matthew 28:16-17).
E. Jesus accepts divine entitlement
In what is a clear dialogue between Jesus and "Doubting" Thomas, we
read: Then Jesus said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands.
Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and
believe.." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus held
him," Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those
who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:27-29).
Does Jesus say, "I am God"? No, because that would have been
misunderstood. Jesus is not the Father (as it would have been
thought), Jesus is the Son. But He clearly claims an absolutely unique
relationship with God whom Jesus calls 'Father." Jesus claims
something about Himself that, through the various miracles, His
statements as cited above, and the response He receives from other
people, is slowly filled-out, and the meaning of His Sonship becomes
clear.
In the very opening of his Gospel, the Apostle John presents Jesus as
"the Word" and provides perhaps the clearest explanation of the
identity of Jesus, the meaning of the incarnation, and a further
glimpse into the reality of the Trinity:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were
made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was
life, and that life was the light of men. The Word became flesh and
made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the
One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John
1:1-4; 14).
4. If it can be proven, through the Bible, that Jesus is not God, nor
the physical/begotten/sired son of GodSon of God, neither is there any
trinity, then will this prove that the unscrupulous few have corrupted
the word of God?
The Christian message about Jesus revolves around three facts: the
incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. Prove from the
Bible or otherwise that any one of these three things are not true,
and like a three-legged stool the truth of the message would collapse.
Most "proofs" against the traditional teachings of Christianity
consist of pitting one passage of Scripture against another, and
almost always taking such passages out of context. Context, I believe,
always vindicates the understanding of God and of Jesus as I have here
tried to briefly present.
I would conclude, then, with an encouragement for the readers to read
the Bible, particularly one of the Gospels, for themselves. There, I
believe, the words and works of Jesus would provide a most convincing
reason to embrace Him as Lord and Savior, and find in Him the
spiritual satisfaction that so many today seek after.
1.2 Muslim perspective
(Note: the rest of chapter one is an expansion of the original
response to Mr. J's letter)
Thank you Mr. J for your most thought provoking letter. I would also
like to thank you for the knowledge you have provided therein. In what
is to follow I have striven to avoid objectionable or disrespectful
wording. This is an academic exchange and not a slug-fest. I am
however human. If one or two cases have slipped by me then I apologize
in advance for them. They were not intentional. I also realize that
this is quite a lengthy response for someone to read in one sitting.
However, I ask the reader to try to do so and not to pass judgment
until they have managed to receive a complete picture. Now, the
response:
The three faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all purport to
share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the
Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as "Tawhid" in Islam,
this concept of Oneness of God was stressed by Moses (pbuh) in the
Biblical passage Known as the "Shema," or the Jewish creed of faith:
"Hear, O Israel The Lord our God is one Lord"
Deuteronomy 6:4
It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus
(pbuh) when he said
"...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our
God is one Lord."
Mark 12:29
Muhammad (pbuh) came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the
same message again:
"And your God is One God: there is no god but He"
The noble Qur'an, al-Bakarah(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 CE (see historical details in section
1.2.5). This doctrine, which continues to be the source of controversy
both within and outside 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. Christians
must guard themselves from ever claiming that they worship three gods
since this would be a heresy of the worst kind. Christians are
commanded to always refer to them all as ONE God. This belief, as we
shall soon see in coming chapters, was first put to words in the
famous "Creed of Nicea" in 325C.E. Among other things, it says:
"Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.
For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire he will
undoubtedly be lost forever. This is what the Catholic faith teaches:
we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity. We
distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance. For
the Father is a distinct person; the Son is a distinct person; and the
Holy Spirit is a distinct person. Still the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is. The Father is
uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The
Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is
boundless. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy
Spirit is eternal. Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings,
but one eternal being. Thus there are not three uncreated beings, nor
three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless
being. Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and
the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. Yet there are not three omnipotent
beings, but one omnipotent being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is
God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But there are not three gods, but one
God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.
There as not three lords, but one Lord. For according to Christian
truth, we must profess that each of the persons individually is God;
and according to Christian religion we are forbidden to say that there
are three gods or lords. ...But the entire three persons are coeternal
and coequal with one another....So that, as we have said, we worship
complete unity in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity. This, then, is
what he who wishes to be saved must believe about the Trinity....This is
the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly;
otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen."
Christian sects are many and varied. However, the majority of
Christians the world over believe in the following four basic
concepts:
1. The Trinity,
2. The divine Sonship of Jesus (pbuh),
3. The original sin, and
4. The death of "the Son of God" on the cross in atonement for the
original sin of Adam.
Everything else is pretty much relegated into the background. A
Christian can be saved and enter heaven by simply believing in the
above creeds. According to St. Paul, the previous law and commandments
of God are worthless, this simple belief will guarantee for all comers
eternal salvation. For example, St. Paul is quoted to have said:
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the
deeds of the law."
Romans 3:28.
The words of Saint Paul are held by most of Christianity in the
highest regard, and this is understandable since he is the primary
author of the majority of the books of the New Testament. However, no
matter what role St. Paul played in the definition and spread of
Christianity, when displaying respect for the teachings of Paul, it is
necessary not to lose sight of the fact that he is in no way equal to
Jesus, nor should his command be placed before the command of Jesus if
we were to find them to differ from one another. No one, not even Paul
or the apostles of Jesus has this right, since they are all, after
all, subordinate to Jesus Christ himself.
However, were we to study the religion known today as "Christ"ianity,
we would find that it is the interpretation of St. Paul of what he
personally believed to be the religion of Jesus(pbuh). Christianity as
it stands today has been reduced to an interpretation of the words of
Jesus (pbuh) within the context of what Paul taught rather than the
other way around which is the way it should be. We would expect
Christianity to be the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and that the words of
Paul and everyone else would be accepted or rejected according to
their conformity to these "Jesuit" teachings. However, we will notice
in what follows that Jesus (pbuh) never in his lifetime mentioned an
original sin, or an atonement. He never asked anyone to worship him,
neither did he ever claim to be part of a Trinity. His words and
actions are those of a loyal messenger of God who faithfully and
faultlessly followed the commands of his Lord and only told his
followers to do the same and to worship God alone (John 4:21, John
4:23, Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8 ...etc.).
Just one of the countless examples of this placement of the words of
Paul above the words of Jesus can be seen in the following analysis:
Jesus (pbuh) is claimed to have been prepared for his sacrifice on the
cross from the beginning of time and was a willing victim (otherwise
we would have to claim that God is a sadistic and torturous God who
forced Jesus into such a savage end). However, whenever Jesus (pbuh)
was asked about the path to "eternal life" he consistently told his
followers to only "keep the commandments" and nothing more (Matthew
19:16-21, John 14:15, John 15:10). Not once did he himself ever
mention an original sin or a redemption. Even when pressed for the
path to "PERFECTION" he only told his followers to sell their
belongings. He departed this earth leaving his followers with the very
dire threat:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilledJesus,
Fulfillment of Law of Moses. Whosoever therefore shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called
the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach
them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:18-19.
Obviously, heaven and earth have not yet passed. The fact that you are
reading this book bears witness to this very simple fact. So Jesus
(pbuh) is telling us that so long as creation exists, the commandments
will be required from his followers. Anyone who will dare to say
otherwise, until the end of time, will be called "the least in the
kingdom of heaven." Jesus (pbuh) had foreseen mankind's attempt to
distort and annul his commandments, the commandments of Moses (pbuh),
which he had taught his followers to keep and himself had kept
faithfully till the crucifixion, and was warning his followers in no
uncertain terms to be wary of all those who would attempt to do so.
Not long after, Jesus departs. Now Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul), a man
who never met Jesus (pbuh), a man who by his own admission persecuted
the followers of Jesus (pbuh) by every means within his power and
presided over their execution (see below), comes along. Suddenly one
day St. Paul receives a vision from Jesus (pbuh), and his whole life
is turned around. He now takes it upon himself through the authority
of his visions to spread the word of Jesus to the whole world and to
explain what Jesus really meant. Paul claims that the law of God
through Moses (pbuh) is worthless, decaying and ready to vanish away
and faith in the crucifixion is the only requirement for a Christian
to enter heaven (Romans 3:28, Hebrews 8:13...etc.). Who do Christians
listen to, Jesus or Paul? They listen to Paul. They take the words of
Paul literally and then "interpret" the words of Jesus (pbuh) within
the context of the words of Paul. No one takes the words of Jesus
(pbuh) literally and explains the words of Paul within the context of
Jesus' words.
According to this system of explaining the words of Jesus within the
context of Paul's teachings, Jesus never actually means what he says
but is constantly speaking in riddles which are not to be taken
literally. Even when people attempt to cite the words of Jesus as
confirming the teachings of Paul with regard to the original sin, the
atonement, ...etc. they never bring clear and decisive words where
Jesus actually confirms these things. Instead, they say such things as
"When Jesus spoke of the exodus he was really speaking of the
atonement" or so forth. Are we to believe that Paul is the only one
who can say what is on his mind clearly and decisively while Jesus
(pbuh) is not capable of articulating what he means clearly and
decisively but requires interpreters to explain the "true" meaning of
what he said, and to explain how, when he spoke of the commandments,
he was not talking of "the commandments" but of a spiritual
commandment and that they will now tell you what this spiritual
commandment is that Jesus never managed to talk clearly about?.
It is interesting to note that Jesus was not talking in riddles when
he commanded his followers to keep the commandments but was talking of
the actual physical commandments of Moses. This can be clearly seen by
reading for instance Luke 18:20 where Jesus spells out in no uncertain
terms what he means by "keep the commandments."
"And I (Jesus) have come confirming that which was before me of the
Torah, and to make lawful for you part of that which was forbidden
upon you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord so seek
refuge in Allah and obey me"
The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):50
In the past, I have searched for a logical answer to this puzzle by
posing the following questions to respected Christian clergy:
1. According to you, Jesus is supposed to have been prepared for the
"atonement" from the beginning of time. He should know that it is
coming.
2. Whenever he was asked about the path to "eternal life" (i.e.
Matthew 19:16-22 ..etc.) he consistently told his followers to only
"keep the commandments" just as he had "kept my father's
commandments" ..etc.
3. Even when he was pressed for more, he only told his followers that
in order to be PERFECT they needed only to sell their belongings.
4. Not once did he mention an "atonement" or and "original sin."
5. The commandments he spoke about were the commandments of Moses and
not some "spiritual" commandments. This can be seen in the text itself
where Jesus (pbuh) explicitly spells out some of the commandments of
Moses one by one.
6. St. Paul, a disciple of a disciple, is the one who is followed by
Christianity and not Jesus. Jesus' teachings are explained within the
context of Paul's teachings and not vice versa.
Whenever this question would be presented to a respected member of the
Christian clergy the response would always be the same: "Well, don't
take Jesus' words literally. St. Paul has told us in Romans ...," or
"Yes, but St. Paul tells us in Galatians ....," or "St. Paul tells us
in Corinthians .." Yet my question remains: where did JESUS every say
it? Where does the RED ink say it? Doesn't St. Paul's authority come
from Jesus? I simply want a single clear statement from Jesus himself
where he endorsed Paul's claims and then it would be possible to
accept Paul's claim that he was indeed preaching the "command of
Jesus." If Jesus were only to say it once then I can accept Paul
repeating it a thousand times. However, as we shall soon see, never,
not even once in his whole lifetime did Jesus (pbuh) endorse the
preachings of Paul.
Getting back to the matter at hand, the reader will notice in Mr. J's
response a surprising absence of certain very fundamental verses
usually quoted by any Christian man or woman off the street in defense
of the "Trinity" and other issues. The reader may further surmise that
Mr. J might not be well versed enough in the Bible to have referred to
these verses. This is far from the case. His occupation requires that
he know those verses. The fact of the matter is that I have had an
ongoing correspondence with Mr. J for a number of months now which he
has now asked be publicized. In this correspondence, many of these
fundamental verses were dealt with in detail and refuted for various
reasons. This is why he did not quote them here. However, in order
that all may benefit from this information we will quote these same
verses that he has elected not to. We will also study the other verses
he has presented.
1.2.1 "Blind faith" or "Prove all things"?
Before actually getting down to our response, let us first establish
the ground rules. All Bibles in existence today tell us that
Christians are taught by Jesus (pbuh) himself:
"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O
Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,
and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment."
Mark 12:29-30.
They are also told
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"
1 Thessalonians 5:21
and "For God is not [the author] of confusion"
1 Corinthians 14:33.
So, contrary to the teachings of many, Jesus (pbuh) did not want his
followers to believe everything they were told on "blind faith."
Rather, he wanted his followers to believe "with all thy mind." He
wanted us to THINK in order to protect his words from corruption. Let
us comply with the teaching of Allah's elect messenger, Jesus (peace
be upon him), and see where the truth and our minds will lead us:
1.2.2: The "Trinity," or 1+1+1=1
"Opeople of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of
Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was [no more
or less than] a messenger of Allah, and His word, which he bestowed
upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from Him: so believe in Allah and
his messengers. Say not "Three": desist!, it is better for you, for
Allah is one god, Glory be to Him, Far exalted is He above having a
son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough
is Allah as a disposer of affairs."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissah(4):171
"Or have they (mankind) chosen gods from the earth who raise the dead
If there were therein gods besides Allah then verily both (the heavens
and the earth) would have gone to ruin. Glorified be Allah, the Lord
of the throne from all they ascribe (unto Him)"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Anbia(21):21-22
"Allah coineth a similitude: A man in relation to whom are several
partners quarreling, and a man belonging wholly to one man. Are the
two equal in similitude? Praise be to Allah, but most of them know
not."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Zumar(39):27.
In other words, which would be more conducive of harmony: For an
employee to have two bosses quarreling over him, or for each employee
to have only one boss?
"Say (O Muhammad, to the disbelievers): If there were other gods along
with Him, as they say, then they would have sought a way against the
Lord of the Throne. Glorified is He, and High Exalted above what they
say! The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise
Him, and there is not a thing but hymns his praise; but you understand
not their praise. Lo! He is ever Clement, Forgiving."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Israa(17):42-44.
"And say: Praise be to Allah, Who has not taken unto Himself a son,
and Who has no partner in the Sovereignty, nor has He any ally through
dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Israa(17):111.
"Allah has not chosen any son, nor is there any God along with Him;
else would each God have assuredly championed that which he created,
and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be
Allah above all that they allege. Knower of the invisible and the
visible! and exalted be He over all that they ascribe as partners
(unto Him)!"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Muminoon(23):91-92.
The concept of the "Trinity" as originally adopted by Christianity
three centuries after the departure of Jesus (see historical details
at the end of this chapter) and taught to Christians ever since is the
merging of three entities into one similar entity while remaining
three distinct entities. In other words: Three bodies fold, blend, or
merge into one body so that they become one entity while at the same
time exhibiting the characteristics of three distinct and separate
entities. It is described as "a mystery." As we just read, the first
definition of the Trinity was put forth in the fourth century as
follows: "...we worship one God in the trinity, and Trinity in
Unity...for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son,
another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but
one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal...he
therefore that will be saved must thus think of the
trinity..." (excerpts from the Athanasian creed).
When the Church speaks of worship, God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are
claimed to be one being. This is because verses such as Isaiah
43:10-11 and countless others are very explicit in affirming that God
Almighty is ONE. However, when they speak of "the death of God" it is
Jesus (pbuh) who is claimed to have died and not God or the "Trinity."
Now the three are separate. When God is described as having "begotten"
a son it is not the "Trinity" nor Jesus (pbuh) which has begotten, but
a distinctly separate being from the other two... there are many such
examples. So how do we resolve this problem? Do we simply have blind
faith or do we "love the Lord thy God ... with all thy mind,"?. If we
chose the later course of action then we shall first need to specify
what authority we shall accept in our recognition of the true divine
nature of God Almighty.
When God Almighty sends down a revelation, He addresses it to the
common man, the carpenter, the blacksmith, the local merchant. God
does not reveal His scriptures in a language that only the deep
thinkers, the most learned scholars, and those with Ph.D.s in rocket
science alone can understand. This is not to say that it is not
necessary to consult people of authority in this scripture in times of
difficulty regarding matters of secondary importance, however, if it
were impossible for the common man to even recognize from his
scripture who is God, or "who do I worship?" without extensive
external influences from learned clergymen, then I am sure you will
agree that not very many people shall ever be guided to the truth of
this scripture and the basic message contained therein.
The matter of "who do I worship" is without a doubt the hands-down
most important, nay crucial, piece of information that must be
provided a reader of a divine scripture before they can accept a
single word of this scripture. This matter must be made exceedingly
clear to them before they can accept a single commandment. If I wish
to work for a company but I do not know who is(are) my boss(s) then
how can I know what he(they) want me to do? How can I know which
commands to follow and which not to?
For the same reason, we would be justified in expecting that if we
were to present a native of the jungles of Zimbabwe with a copy of a
divine scripture in it's original language, and we were to leave
without saying a single word to him, then we would expect that at the
very least, this person should be able to extract from this scripture
the nature of the One who inspired this book.
Therefore, let us begin by drawing a table and including in this table
some commands of the Bible where we are explicitly commanded to
recognize that God is one, and also all verses where it explicitly
commands us to believe that He is three. Once the Bible commands me to
believe that God is three in one then I shall not ask for an
explanation or a justification. I do not need God to explain "how" He
can be "one" and also "three" at the same time. All I want is for the
Bible to command me to believe that this is so and then command me to
have blind faith. Here is our table:
- Explicit Statement
God is ONE -
God is THREE -
Now that we have built this table we are ready to proceed. Let us
begin by filling in the first line.
In the Bible we read:
1. "Know therefore this day, and consider [it] in thine heart, that
the LORD he [is] God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath:
[there is] none else." Deuteronomy 4:39.
2. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3
3. "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is]
Jealous, [is] a jealous God:" Exodus 34:14
4. "Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have
chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am]
he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after
me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no savior."
Isaiah 43:10-11.
5. "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
6. "That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none
else." Isaiah 45:6
7. "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that
formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it
not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there
is] none else." Isaiah 45:18.
8. "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I
[am] God, and [there is] none else." Isaiah 45:22
This is only a brief sampling, however, it is sufficient for now. So
let us fill in the table.
- Explicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14
God is THREE -
So now let us move on and fill in the second line. Let us start with
the verses quoted by Mr. J.
Mr. J. has presented us with Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II
Corinthians 13:14, and Jude 1:20-21 as proof of the claim that God
Almighty is three-in-one. Let us study them. But first, let us clearly
define our goal. When I asked for a verse wherein God is explicitly
claimed to be "three in one," what I wanted was a verse that says
something like "God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are all gods, however,
they are not three gods but one God," or "God, Jesus, and the Holy
Ghost are the same being," or "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one
and the same" etc.
Just because the words "God," "Jesus," and "Holy Ghost" might appear
together in one verse does not mean this verse requires a "Trinity,"
or "merging of three into one." Even if this verse also contains the
word "one" this still does not necessarily require a "Trinity." For
example, if I say "Joe, Jim, and Frank speak one language" this is not
the same as saying "Joe, Jim, and Frank are one person." As we shall
see, the examples Mr. J. has presented are all at best implicit
statements, so let us begin by modifying our table and inserting these
verses:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is THREE None so far Matthew 28:19, I Corinthians 12:4-6, II
Corinthians 13:14, Jude 1:20-21
1.2.2.1 Matthew 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to "Go ye
therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the
United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union," does this require
that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one
in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that
they are the same physical entity.
Further, the "Great Commission" as narrated in the Gospel of Mark,
bears no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark
16:15). As we shall see in chapter two, Christian historians readily
admit that the Bible was the object of continuous "correction" and
"addition" to bring it in line with established beliefs. They present
many documented cases where words were "inserted" into a given verse
to validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor of
the Toronto Star says:
"All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the
latter part of this command was inserted later. The formula occurs
nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence
available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did
not baptize people using these words - baptism was 'into' or 'in' the
name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read
'baptizing them in my name' and then was expanded to work in the
dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars
as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the
accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when
Peake's commentary was first published: 'The church of the first days
did not observe this world-wide commandment, even if they new it. The
command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal
expansion.'"
"For Christ's sake," Tom Harpur, p. 103
This is confirmed in 'Peake's Commentary on the Bible' published since
1919, which is universally acclaimed and considered to be the standard
reference for students of the Bible. It says:
"This mission is described in the language of the church and most
commentators doubt that the Trinitarian formula was original at this
point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a
formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the
Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.)."
For example, these Christian scholars observed that after Jesus
allegedly issued this command and then was taken up into heaven, the
apostles displayed a complete lack of knowledge of this command.
"And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;...'"
Acts 2:38.
These Christian scholars observed that it is extremely unlikely that
if Jesus had indeed specifically commanded his apostles to "baptize in
the name of the father and the son and the holy Ghost" that the
apostles would later disobey his direct command and baptize only in
the name of Jesus Christ, alone.
As a final piece of evidence, it is noted that after the departure of
Jesus, when Paul decided to preach to the Gentiles, this resulted in a
heated debate and a great difference of opinion between him and at
least three of the apostles. This would not be the case if Jesus had,
as claimed, openly commanded them to preach to the Gentiles (see
section 6.13 for more). So we notice that not only does this verse
never claim that the three are one, or even that the three are equal,
but most scholars of Christianity today recognize that at the very
least the last part of this verse ("the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost") was not originally part of the command of Jesus but was
inserted by the church long after Jesus' departure.
1.2.2.2 I Corinthians 12:4-6
"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there
are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are
diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in
all."
If I were to say: "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Santa
Claus. And there are differences of administrations, but the same
government. And there are a diversity of operations, but the same God
worketh all in all." Do God, the US government and Santa Claus now
form another "Trinity"? Is this indeed how this verse was meant to be
read? Is it impossible to receive "gifts," "administrations," and
"operations" except from ONE person? There is a big difference between
this verse and between saying "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one
and the same." Even in the very best case, no one who reads I
Corinthians 12:4-6 will claim that it explicitly states that the three
are one, they themselves will have to admit that it only implies such
a connection. So now we need to ask: Why would God Almighty need to
resort to implying His triune nature if this is indeed what He
intended? What is preventing Him from simply coming out and stating
His intent clearly if this is indeed what He meant?
Why does everything have to be so abstract? If this is the true nature
of God then why can't the Bible just come out and say "God, Jesus, and
the Holy Ghost are physically joined in one being" or "God, Jesus, and
the Holy Ghost are one and the same." Is this so very hard? Look at
how much less space this would require. Look at how infinitely more
clear and decisive that would be. Look at the clear cut decisiveness
of Deuteronomy 4:39
"Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the
LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is
none else."
God does not philosophize and speak all the way around matters. He
speaks clearly and in no uncertain terms so that there can be no doubt
as to what He meant. If God was indeed a Trinity why would He not
simply just come out and say so, just as clearly and decisively as He
does when He speaks about his uniqueness?
1.2.2.3 II Corinthians 13:14
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the
communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen."
If I say: "May the genius of Einstein, the philosophy of Descartes,
and the strength of Schwarzenegger be with you all" does this require
all three to be joined in a "Trinity"? Does it require that Einstein
is Descartes (or a different "side" of Descartes)? Does it require
that Descartes is Schwarzenegger (or a different "side" of
Schwarzenegger)?
1.2.2.4 Jude 1:20-21
"But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith,
praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking
for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life."
By now we begin to get the picture. Do these verses require a
Trinity?. Do they say "God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are ONE God?" If
a father told his sons who were going off to war "But ye, beloved,
building up yourselves on your training, obeying your superior
officers, Keep yourselves in the love of your country while you look
for the mercy of God to return you home to us safely," can we honestly
claim that this statement requires a "merging of three into one"?.
Deuteronomy 4:39 requires the uniqueness of God. It is very explicit.
There are no two ways about it. It is very clear, decisive, and to the
point. The explicit (and not the "hidden") meaning is quite clear and
direct. Is it impossible to find the Bible only a single verse that is
similarly decisive about the claimed Trinity?. All of these verses
require you to really strain the words and stretch their meaning to
arrive at any merging of three into one.
With regard to Mr. J.'s description of the Trinity please read the
analysis of the original sin and the redemption coming up soon.
An interesting point is that when people tell us about the doctrine of
the "Trinity," even in the very best case, they never try to claim
that any Jew knew of this formula before the coming of Jesus (pbuh) or
worshipped a "Triune" God. However, God Almighty was sending prophets
to the Jews for centuries before the time of Jesus, and Jesus is
claimed to have been in existence before all of creation. Why did none
of these previous prophets tell their people that God was three?. They
went out of their way to make it very explicitly clear that God was
ONE as seen in the above examples, however, there is not a single Jew
alive who worships a Trinity, believes that the Holy Spirit mentioned
in their Old Testament is God, or worships a "Son of God." Even if the
Jews do not believe that Jesus is the "Son of God," would we not be
justified in expecting that they should at least believe that "there
is" a "Son of God" even if he was someone other than Jesus? Would we
not be justified in expecting the previous prophets to have mentioned
this fact? Why did God wait to favor us alone with this knowledge and
chose to deprive many countless thousands of generations before Jesus
the knowledge of this claimed fact? Did the countless prophets of the
Old Testament not know about the "Trinity"? Did God not see fit to
tell the Jews about the Trinity? Was God not yet a "Trinity" when He
sent Abraham (pbuh) to his people? Was He not yet a "Trinity" when He
spoke to Moses (pbuh)? Did He become a "Trinity" later on? How then do
we explain the Christian creed of Nicea, the official Church
definition of the "Trinity" which requires the "co-eternity" and "co-
substantiality" of Jesus with God? But let us continue with our
analysis. Let us begin by updating our table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is THREE - Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
When someone speaks to someone else about a specific matter, they
usually spend the majority of their time explaining the major issues
and much less time on side-issues. For instance, if I wanted to give
someone my favorite recipe for chicken parmesan I would spend most of
my time speaking about the ingredients, their amounts, their order of
combination, the amount of time needed to cook each one and so on. I
would spend very little time (comparatively) talking about how to set
the table or what color bowl to serve it in. When comparing this
observation to the Bible, I found that for a matter of such profound
and dire importance, the "Trinity" is never mentioned in the Bible at
all. Sound preposterous? Read on.
Let us first begin by modifying our table and including all of the
verses of the Bible which are used today in defense of the "Trinity."
The reason for these modifications shall be made clear in our
analysis.
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28,
John.14:6,
John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.5 1 John 5:7
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus,
and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 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."
This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have
been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now
universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and
all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version
the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the
New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all
unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? The
scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation
for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says:
"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any
Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century.
It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of
early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated
would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is
therefore evidently spurious."
Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this
verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the
heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and God's people.
Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an
insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating
a "Trinity" therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God
chose to inspire someone to insert this verse in order to clarify the
true nature of God as being a "Trinity." Notice how mankind was being
inspired as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the
departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths
of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations
whatsoever. They were being "inspired" (see chapter two).
If these people were being "inspired" by God, I wondered, then why did
they need to put these words into other people's mouths (in our
example, in the mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say "God
inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name"? Also,
why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to
"inspire" his "true" nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?
The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains
the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible
with the following words:
"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of
which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the
Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming
invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy
to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the
Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by
Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum
Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is
still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and
fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The
three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the
prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors;
the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing
of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange
misapprehension, of Theodore Beza."
"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.
Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the
brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish
devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only
first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year 400C.E.
(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).
Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbon later said
"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and
enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any
quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses
would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind,
authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this
spurious text."
To which Mr. Bentley responds:
"In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the
interpolation."
Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed, just as Mr. Gibbon had
predicted, the simple fact that the most learned scholars of
Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a later
interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of this
fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the
hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still
unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without
so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of
Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.
Peake's Commentary on the Bible says
"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even
in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father,
the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early
Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it.
Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate
and finally the NT of Erasmus."
It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir
Isaac Newton from openly revealing these facts to all:
"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the
Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the
text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in
everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and
would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their
books... Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can
make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is
scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in
places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with
what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and
superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond
of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand
least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have
that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and
therefore take that to be his which is the best"
Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156
According to Newton, this verse first appeared for in the third
edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament.
For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty two biblical
scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations got
together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based
upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today,
they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the
unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated
insertion that it is. For more on the compilation of the RSV Bible,
please read the preface of any modern copy of that Bible.
Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus
(pbuh) riding an XXX (or was it a "colt", or was it an "XXX and a
colt"? see point 42 in the table of section 2.2) into Jerusalem are
spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a
prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read:
"And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you:
and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied,
whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring [him]. And if any man say
unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and
straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and
found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met;
and they loose him And certain of them that stood there said unto
them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as
Jesus had commanded: and they let them go And they brought the colt to
Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many
spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the
trees, and strawed [them] in the way And they that went before, and
they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that
cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father
David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."
Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of
this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of
any description of the "Trinity" which is supposedly a description of
the very nature of the one who rode this XXX, who is claimed to be the
only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of
mankind. I found myself asking the question: If every aspect of
Christian faith is described in such detail such that even the
description of this XXX is so vividly depicted for us, then why is the
same not true for the description of the "Trinity"? Sadly, however, it
is a question for which there is no logical answer.
Once again, here is the table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1, John 10:30 John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.6 John 1:1
Another verse quoted in defense of the "Trinity" is the verse of John
1:1 :
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God."
When I first learned of this verse it appeared to me that I had
finally found my elusive goal. However, after substantial research
into Christian theological literature, I would later come to learn
that this verse too can not be interpreted to justify a "triune" God.
My own experience has shown that this verse is the one most popularly
quoted by most Christians in defense of the Trinity. For this reason I
shall spend a little more time in it's analysis than in the analysis
of the other verses.
First of all, it is quite obvious from simply reading the above verse
that even in the very best case, this verse speaks only of a "Duality"
not a "Trinity." Even the most resolute conservative Christian will
never claim to find in this verse any mention whatsoever of a
"merging" of a Holy Ghost with God and "the Word." So even if we were
to accept this verse at face value and just have faith, even then, we
find ourselves commanded to believe in a "Duality" and not a
"Trinity." But let us see if this verse does in fact even command us
to believe in a "Duality." To do this we need to notice the following
points:
1) Mistranslation of the text:
In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak
Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a
god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful
and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will
find exactly this wording).
Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse
is honestly presented as
"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the
Word was divine."
The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M.
Powis Smith, The university of Chicago Press, p. 173
And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God"
we read
"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God
[=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"
The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317
In yet another Bible we read:
"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was
with God, the Logos was divine"
The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James
Moffatt
Please also see "The Authentic New Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield
and many others.
If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact
same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God
Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of
translation has been changed:
"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them
which believe not."
According to the system of the previous verse and the English
language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also
have been written as "The God" with a capital "G." If Paul was
inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why
should we change it? Why is "The God" translated as simply "the god"
when referring to the devil, while "divine" is translated as the
almighty "God" when referring to "The Word"? Are we now starting to
get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?
Well, what is the difference between saying "the word was God," and
between saying "the word was a god (divine)"? Are they not the same?
Far from it! Let us read the bible:
"I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of
the most High"
Psalms 82:6:
"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh"
Exodus 7:1
"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them
which believe not."
2 Corinthians 4:4
What does all of this mean? Let me explain.
In the West, it is common when one wishes to praise someone to say
"You are a prince," or "You are an angel" ..etc. When someone says
this do they mean that that person is the son of the King of England,
or a divine spiritual being? There is a very slight grammatical
difference between saying "You are a prince" and between saying "You
are THE prince," however, the difference in meaning is quite
dramatic.
Further, it is necessary when translating a verse to also take into
account the meaning as understood by the people of that age who spoke
that language. One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands
today is that it forces us to look at ancient Hebrew and Aramaic
scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are
neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called "original"
manuscripts of the NT available today are written in Greek or Latin.
The Jews had no trouble reading such verses as Psalms 82:6, and Exodus
7:1, while still affirming that there is only one God in existence and
vehemently denying the divinity of all but God Almighty. It is the
continuous filtration of these manuscripts through different languages
and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church's extensive efforts
to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew Gospels (see last
quarter of this chapter) which has led to this misunderstanding of the
verses.
The Americans have a saying: "Hit the road men." It means "It is time
for you to leave." However, if a non-American were to receive this
command without any explanation then it is quite possible that we
would find him beating the road with a stick. Did he understand the
words? Yes! Did he understand the meaning? No!
In the Christian church we would be hard pressed to find a single
priest or nun who does not address their followers as "my children."
They would say: "Come here my children", or "Be wary of evil my
children" ... etc. What do they mean?
A fact that many people do not realize is that around 200AD spoken
Hebrew had virtually disappeared from everyday use as a spoken
language. It was not until the 1880s that a conscious effort was made
by Eliezer Ben-Yehudah to revive the dead language. Only about a third
of current spoken Hebrew and basic grammatical structures come from
biblical and Mishnaic sources. The rest was introduced in the revival
and includes elements of other languages and cultures including the
Greek and Arabic languages.
Even worse than these two examples are cases when translation into a
different languages can result in a reversal of the meaning. For
example, in the West, when someone loves something they say "It warmed
my heart." In the Middle East, the same expression of joy would be
conveyed with the words: "It froze my heart." If an Mideasterner were
to greet a Westerner with the words: "It froze my heart to see you,"
then obviously this statement would not be greeted with a whole lot of
enthusiasm from that Westerner, and vice versa. This is indeed one of
the major reasons why the Muslims have been so much more successful in
the preservation of their holy text than the Christians or the Jews;
because the language of the Qur'an has remained from the time of
Muhammad (pbuh) to the present day a living language, the book itself
has always been in the hands of the people (and not the "elite"), and
the text of the book remains in the original language of Muhammad
(pbuh). For this reason, a translator must not and should not
"translate" in a vacuum while disregarding the culture and traditions
of the people who wrote these words. As we have just seen, it was
indeed quite common among the Jews to use the word "god" (divine) to
convey a sense of supreme power or authority to human beings. This
system, however, was never popularly adopted by them to mean that
these individuals were in any way omnipotent, superhuman, or equal to
the Almighty.
2) Basic message of John:
Now that we have seen the correct translation of the verse of John
1:1, let us go a little further in our study of the intended meaning
of this verse. This verse was taken from the "Gospel of John." The
very best person to ask to explain what is meant by a given statement
is the author of that statement himself. So let us ask "John" what is
his mental picture of God and Jesus (pbuh) which he wishes to convey
to us:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his
lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."
John 13:16.
So the author of John tells us that God is greater than Jesus. If the
author of this Gospel did indeed wish us to understand that Jesus and
God are "one and the same," then can someone be greater than himself?
Similarly,
"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto
you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the
Father: for my Father is greater than I."
John 14:28.
Can someone "go" to himself? Can someone be "greater" than himself?
"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said,
Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may
glorify thee:"
John 17:1.
If John meant to tell us that "Jesus and God are one and the same"
then shall we understand from this verse that God is saying to Himself
"Self, glorify me so that I may glorify myself"? Does this sound like
this is the message of John?
"While I (Jesus) was with them in the world, I kept them in thy
(God's) name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them
is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be
fulfilled."
John 17:12.
If the author of John wanted us to believe that Jesus and God are one
person then are we to understand from this verse that God is saying to
Himself "Self, while I was in the world I kept them in your name,
self. Those who I gave to myself I have kept ..."? Is this what the
author intended us to understand from his writings?
"Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me
where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me:
for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."
John 17:24.
Similarly, did the author intend us to interpret this as "Self, I will
that they also whom I have given myself be with me where I am; that
they my behold my glory which I have given myself, for I loved myself
before the foundation of the world"?
So, we begin to see that in order to understand the writings of a
given author, it is necessary to not take a single quotation from him
in a vacuum and then interpret his whole message based upon that one
sentence (and a badly mistranslated version of that sentence at that).
3) Who wrote the "Gospel of John"?:
The "Gospel of John" is popularly believed by the majority of regular
church-goers to be the work of the apostle John the son of Zebedee.
However, when consulting Christianity's more learned scholars of
Church history, we find that this is far from the case. These scholars
draw our attention to the fact that internal evidence provides serious
doubt as to whether the apostle John the son of Zebedee wrote this
Gospel himself. In the dictionary of the Bible by John Mckenzie we
read
"A. Feuillet notes that authorship here may be taken loosely."
Such claims are based on such verses as 21:24:
"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote
these things: and we know that his testimony is true."?
Did the apostle John write this about himself? Also see 21:20, 13:23,
19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20-23. The "disciple who Jesus loved"
according to the Church is John himself, but the author of this gospel
speaks of him as a different person.
Further, The Gospel of John was written at or near Ephesus between the
years 110 and 115 (some say 95-100) of the Christian era by this, or
these, unknown author(s). According to R. H. Charles, Alfred Loisy,
Robert Eisler, and other scholars of Christian history, John of
Zebedee was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE, long before the
fourth Gospel was written. Did the Holy Ghost "inspire" the apostle
John's ghost to write this gospel sixty years after he was killed? .
In other words, what we have here is a gospel which is popularly
believed to have been written by the apostle John, but which in fact
was not written by him. In fact no one really knows for certain who
wrote this gospel.
"Since the beginning of the period of modern critical study, however,
there has been much controversy about [the Gospel of John's]
authorship, place of origin, theological affiliations and background,
and historical value"
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 2, Abingdon Press,
p. 932
4) Who "inspired" the author of this gospel to write this verse?:
The words of John 1:1 are acknowledged by most reputable Christian
scholar of the Bible as the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria
(20BC-50AD), who claimed no divine inspiration for them and who wrote
them decades before the "gospel of John" was ever conceived. Groliers
encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading "Logos"("the
word"):
"Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make logos a central
concept ......In the New Testament, the Gospel According to Saint John
gives a central place to logos; the biblical author describes the
Logos as God, the Creative Word, who took on flesh in the man Jesus
Christ. Many have traced John's conception to Greek origins--perhaps
through the intermediacy of eclectic texts like the writings of Philo
of Alexandria."
T. W. Doane says:
"The works of Plato were extensively studied by the Church Fathers,
one of whom joyfully recognizes in the great teacher, the schoolmaster
who, in the fullness of time, was destined to educate the heathen for
Christ, as Moses did the Jews. The celebrated passage : "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was
God" is a fragment of some Pagan treatise on the Platonic philosophy,
evidently written by Irenaeus. It is quoted by Amelius, a Pagan
philosopher as strictly applicable to the Logos, or Mercury, the Word,
apparently as an honorable testimony borne to the Pagan deity by a
barbarian........We see then that the title "Word" or "Logos," being
applied to Jesus, is another piece of Pagan amalgamation with
Christianity. It did not receive its authorized Christian form until
the middle of the second century after Christ. The ancient pagan
Romans worshipped a Trinity. An oracle is said to have declared that
there was 'First God, then the Word, and with them the Spirit'. Here
we see the distinctly enumerated, God, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit
or Holy Ghost, in ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of
this capital - that of Jupiter Capitolinus - was dedicated to three
deities, which three deities were honored with joint worship."
From Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions, pp. 375-376.
6) What was "The Word"?
"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of
Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more
than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which he bestowed upon Mary,
and a spirit preceding from him so believe in Allah and his
messengers. Say not "Three," desist! It will be better for you, for
Allah is one God. Glory be to him. Far exalted is he above having a
son. To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough
is Allah as a disposer of affairs."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):171
In the Qur'an we are told that when God Almighty wills something he
merely says to it "Be" and it is.
"Verily! Our (Allah's) Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only
that We say unto it "Be!" - and it is"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Nahil(16):40 (please also read chapter 14)
This is the Islamic viewpoint of "The Word." "The Word" is literally
God's utterance "Be." This is held out by the Bible where thirteen
verses later in John 1:14 we read:
"And the Word was made flesh".
In the Qur'an, we read:
"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created
him from dust, then said to him: 'Be.' And he was."
The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):59.
Regarding what is meant by Allah by "a spirit preceding from him" I
shall simply let Allah Himself explain:
"And [remember] when Allah said to the angles: 'I shall create a human
(Adam) from sounding clay, from altered mud. So when I have fashioned
him and have breathed into him of my spirit, then fall down in
prostration before him'"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Hijr(15):29
For more on this topic, please read section 1.2.3.8
Let us once again update our table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.7 John 10:30
The third verse which Christians claim validates the doctrine of the
trinity is the verse of John 10:30
"I and my father are one."
This verse, however is quoted out of context. The complete passage,
starting with John 10:23, reads as follows:
"And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews
round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to
doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I
told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's
name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not
of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know
them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they
shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able
to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one."
John 10:23-30
In divinity? In a holy "Trinity"? No! They are one in PURPOSE. Just as
no one shall pluck them out of Jesus' hand, so too shall no one pluck
them out of God's hand.
Need more proof? Then read:
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe
on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the
world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou
gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are
one."
John 17:20-22
Is all of mankind also part of the "Trinity"?
Such terminology can be found in many other places, read for example:
"Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then
take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot?
God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is
one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined
unto the Lord is one spirit,"
1 Corinthians 6:15-17
And also
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in
you all."
Ephesians 4:6
And
"For as the (human) body is one, and hath many members, and all the
members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be
Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made
to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many."
1 Corinthians 12:12-14
Once we read the above verses and understand what the message was that
Paul was trying to get across, then we can begin to understand his
words in such places as
"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope
of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father
of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
Ephesians 4:4
"St. Paul" was speaking about Christian unity, not about a plurality
of gods merged into one body. As we shall soon see, he was completely
ignorant of where his teachings would later lead, and how decades
later, they would be the foundations which would spawn the "Trinity"
doctrine.
Once again, here is our updated table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28,
John.14:6,
John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.8 Genesis 1:26
In the Book of Genesis 1:26, we read:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
In this and other verses of the Bible, God refers to Himself as "us"
and "our," etc. Does not the use of the terms "us" and "our" prove
that the God which created all of creation is not a singular entity
but a Trinity?
For the answer to this question please refer to chapter 14 which
discusses the use of plural pronouns with respect to God in both the
Bible as well as the Qur'an.
And our table now looks like this:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28,
John.14:6,
John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.9 John 14:8-9
Well, what about the verse
"He that hath seen me hath seen the father."
Let us look at the context:
"Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"
John 14:8-9
Philip wanted to see God with his own eyes, but this is impossible
since no one can ever do ever do that. The Bible says:
"No man hath seen God at any time,"
John 1:18
"No man hath seen God at any time,"
1 John 4:12
So Jesus simply told him that his own actions and miracles should be a
sufficient proof of the existence of God without God having to
physically come down and let himself be seen every time someone is
doubtful. This is equivalent to for example
1. John 8:19: "Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus
answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye
should have known my Father also."
2. John 12:44 "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me,
believeth not on me, but on him that sent me."
3. John 15:23 "He that hateth me hateth my Father also."
4. Matthew 10:40-41 "He that receiveth you receiveth me (Jesus), and
he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a
prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and
he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall
receive a righteous man's reward."
If we want to insist that when Philip saw Jesus (pbuh), he had
actually physically seen God "the Father" because Jesus "is" the
father and both are one "Trinity," and Jesus is the "incarnation" of
God, then this will force us to conclude that John 1:18, 1 John
4:12, ..etc. are all lies.
Well, is Philip the only one who ever "saw the father"? Let us read:
"Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he
hath seen the Father."
John 6:46
Who is this who "is of God" and had seen the Father you ask? Let us
once again ask the Bible:
"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not,
because ye are not of God."
John 8:47.
And
"Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He
that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God"
3 John 1:11.
Have all people who have done good also physically seen God?
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.
Top Harpur writes in his book "For Christ's Sake":
"What is most embarrassing for the church is the difficulty of proving
any of these statements of dogma from the new Testament documents. You
simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the
Bible. St. Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but
nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself anywhere
explicitly claim to be the second person in the Trinity, wholly equal
to his heavenly Father. As a pious Jew, he would have been shocked and
offended by such an Idea....(this is) in itself bad enough. But there
is worse to come. This research has lead me to believe that the great
majority of regular churchgoers are, for all practical purposes,
tritheists. That is, they profess to believe in one God, but in
reality they worship three.."
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."
Once again, let us have a look at our table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28,
John.14:6,
John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.10 John 14:6
Some people read:
"I am the way, ...no one comes to the Father, but through me."
When reading this verse, for some reason some people see in it a
confirmation of the Trinity. Although I can not see how they can read
either an explicit or even an implicit reference to the Trinity in
this verse, still, due to it's popularity it deserves to be studied
There appear to be a sizable number of Christians who when reading
this verse interpret it to state that Jesus is God and that no one
shall enter into heaven except if they worship Jesus. For this reason
this verse should ideally be dealt with in section 1.2.3 (The 'Son of
God'), however, since it is brought up so often in discussions of the
Trinity it appears to be appropriate to discuss it here.
The popular perception that this verse claims that Jesus requires our
worship in order for us to receive salvation is not the intended
meaning of this verse. However, in order for us to recognize this fact
it is necessary to study it's context.
If we were to back up a little and read from the beginning of this
chapter, we would find that just before Jesus spoke these words, he
said;
"In my Father's house are many mansions (dwelling places); if it were
not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a mansion (a
dwelling place) for you."
John 14:2
The above statement is quite clear. It is in exact conformance to the
teachings of the Qur'an. In the Qur'an we are told how God sent
messengers to all tribes and nations. We are told that the basic
message which was given to each of these tribes was the same: "Worship
God alone and worship none else." Some of the secondary details of
this worship might differ from one tribe or nation to the next
according to God's infinite wisdom and his knowledge of those people.
It was made very clear to each prophet that he was not to preach to
anyone but his own people. It was further made clear to this
messenger's people that if they were to obey him that they would
receive the reward of God. God would not hold them accountable for
what any other tribe or nation did or did not do. This would continue
until God's last messenger, Muhammad (pbuh) would be sent to all
mankind as the seal of the prophets.
This is exactly what Jesus is saying here. He said that in God's
mansion there are "many" rooms. Jesus was sent to guide to only one of
them. The countless other rooms were reserved for other tribes and
nations if they would obey their messengers. However, Jesus was
telling his followers that they need not worry themselves about the
other rooms. Anyone from among his people who wished to enter into the
room which was reserved for them could only do so if they followed
Jesus and obeyed his command. So Jesus confirmed that he was going to
prepare "a" mansion and not "all" the mansions in "my Father's house".
Further, the verse clearly states that Jesus was the "WAY" to a
mansion. He did not say that he is the "DESTINATION" which would be
the case if he were God. What else would we expect a prophet of God to
say except "I am the 'way' to God's mercy"? That is his job. That is
what a prophet does. It is why God chose him in the first place; in
order to guide to the mercy of God. This is indeed confirmed in John
10:9 where Jesus tells us that he is "the door" to "the pasture." In
other words, he is the "prophet" who guides his people to
"heaven" (see also Jn. 12:44). Once again, this is the message of
Islam.
Finally, remember
"Not every one that says to me(Jesus); 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the
kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, who is in
heaven."
Matthew.7:21
Here, once again is our table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28,
John.14:6,
John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
1.2.2.11 John 20:28
"Then saith he (Jesus) to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold
my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and
be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto
him, My Lord and my God."
Once again, when I was first quoted this verse, I immediately thought
that I had at long last found my elusive goal. Finally, I had found a
verse that explicitly claims that Jesus "is" God. However, it was not
long after that, upon further research into Christian theological
literature, I once again would come to find that the true meaning of
this verse was quite different than what a casual glance might have me
believe.
This verse is at best an example of an "implicit" affirmation of a
"Duality." This is because this verse appears to imply that Thomas
thought that Jesus was God Almighty. The words are those of Thomas and
not Jesus. However, there are a number of problems with interpreting
this verse to mean that Jesus is God.
Firstly, the phrase "Thomas answered" is somewhat misleading since
nowhere before this verses was Thomas asked a question. Thomas' words
could more appropriately be referred to as an "outburst" or an
"exclamation." This is indeed why most translations of the Bible
(excluding the King James Version) follow this exclamation with an
"exclamation mark" as follows: "And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Lord and my God !"
Christian scholars such as Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-428), the
Bishop of Mopsuestia, interpreted this verse to not be directed at
Jesus but at God "the Father." Thus, it is similar in meaning to our
modern exclamations of surprise "My God!" or "My Lord!." In other
words, this was an outburst designed to display surprise and disbelief
rather than an affirmation that Jesus was in fact God "the Father."
Secondly, the word translated in this verse as "God" is indeed the
Greek "Ho theos" (The God), and not "theos" (divine). However, when
studying the history of this verse in the ancient Biblical manuscripts
from which our modern Bibles have been compiled we find an interesting
fact, specifically, that the ancient Biblical manuscripts themselves
are not in agreement as to the correct form of this word. For example,
the codex Bezae (or codex D) is a fifth century manuscript containing
Greek and Latin texts of the Gospels and Acts, which was discovered in
the 16th century by Theodore Beza in a monastery in Lyon. The
predecessor of the codex Bezae and other church manuscripts do not
contain the article "Ho" ("THE") in their text (The Orthodox
Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman, p. 266). What this means is
that this verse in it's original form, if it is to be understood to be
addressing Jesus (pbuh) himself, only addresses him as "divine" and
not as the "Almighty God." Thus, it is similar in meaning to the
meaning conveyed when prophet Moses is described as being a "god" in
Exodus 7:1 (or when all Jews are described as being "gods" in Psalms
82:6, or when the devil is described as god in 2 Corinthians 4:4),
effectively reducing the exclamation of Thomas, if it were indeed
directed to Jesus, to "My lord the divine!," or "my divine lord!"
For a Muslim the matter is simple. The Qur'an very explicitly states
that Jesus was not forsaken by God to the Jews to be crucified, rather
"it was made to appear so to them." So the claim that Jesus came to
Thomas and asked him to witness the imprint of the nail in his hand
and the spear in his side is, for a Muslim, clear evidence that this
whole episode was a fabrication and later insertion. However, since a
Muslim's claim in this regard would not be regarded as authoritative
unbiased proof in this matter, therefore, it is necessary to use a
little logic to arrive at the truth.
Since we now have on our hands a dispute between the ancient Biblical
manuscripts themselves as to what Thomas actually said, therefore, let
me pose this very simple request. Please get out a pencil and a piece
of paper, stop reading this book for the moment, and in your own
words, please write down in about twenty words, very concisely but as
directly as possible, what is the foremost obvious conclusion you are
able to draw from Thomas' outburst. Study your words carefully and
write them down as if your very life and the salvation of thousands of
generations depend on what you are about to say. Make it clear and to
the point. Have you finished?. Okay, let us continue.
Let us now compare what you have just written with what the actual
author of this Gospel had written when faced with the same
requirements I have just presented you with. If we were to continue
reading from this same Gospel of John, we will find that immediately
following this discourse between Jesus and Thomas depicted by the
author of "John," the same author of "John" goes on to write:
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his
disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written,
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and
that believing ye might have life through his name."
John 20:30-31
If the author of John had recognized Thomas' words to be a testimony
that "Jesus is God" and if the author interpreted Jesus' silence to be
his approval of this claimed testimony, then John would have written
"that ye might believe that Jesus is the Almighty God" and not "that
ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ..." (For an explanation of
the terms "son of God" and "Christ" please read sections 1.2.3.2, and
1.2.3.8 which are coming up soon).
To make this matter clearer let us first remember that Christian
scholars tell us that the disciples did not fully comprehend who Jesus
"was" until after the resurrection. They admit that the Trinity was
not "fully" incorporated into Christianity until three hundred years
after the departure of Jesus (see rest of chapter one). However, they
then point to this verse in order to exhibit to us how in the end the
"true" nature of Jesus was made clear to the apostles. Now, we need to
ask, what is the single most important piece of information we have
just learned from Thomas' outburst? What is the single most glaring,
obvious, and outstanding, piece of information we have learned from
this statement? Any random missionary would tell us that it is the
fact that "Jesus is God!" In other words, the disciples have just
spent many years with Jesus learning from him, following him, obeying
him, and preaching his message. Suddenly he is allegedly taken away,
crucified, buried, and then he is resurrected. Now Thomas sees him and
according to the testimony of "John," he realizes that Jesus is "God
the Father" who has come down to earth to walk among us. So what would
we logically expect to be the foremost topic of most urgent and
critical concern in the eyes of the author of "John"? Obviously, it
should be the instillation within us of the "fact" that "Jesus is the
'incarnation' of God Almighty!" Does this not stand to reason? Why
then does the author now casually disregard such an earth shattering
observation and choose to simply return to describing Jesus with the
benign terms of "son of God" and "Messiah/Christ"(see sections
1.2.3.2, and 1.2.3.8)? Did the author of this book not make the
connection which we have just made? Did the author of "John" have less
understanding of what he was writing than us? Think about it.
Furthermore, some Christian scholars believe that the whole episode of
"doubting Thomas" is a later "insertion." "The Five Gospels" mark this
passage as being a complete fabrication and not the word of Jesus
(pbuh).
There are a number of other verses which could be brought up in this
comparison, however, the ones just quoted are the strongest and most
often quoted verses. A number of other verses that are brought up in
such discussions shall be dealt with in chapter 1.2.3 since they are
more directly applicable to the concept of the divinity of Jesus or
the claim that he is the physical/begotten son of God than they are to
the discussion of the Trinity.
Finally, let us now have a final look at our table:
- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah
44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1,
John 10:30 John 20:28,
John.14:6,
John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
As we can see from the table, there is not a single explicit or
implicit statement in the whole Bible confirming the "Trinity." Indeed
this was the very reason why it was decided so many centuries ago to
insert the verse of 1 John 5:7 into the Bible. Because without this
fabricated verse there would be absolutely no earthl |