format_quote Originally Posted by
RLG594
2:111 And they say: None entereth paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. These are their own desires. Say: Bring your proof (of what ye state) if ye are truthful.
Half of being a Muslim is not just believing in Allah but believing in Allah in the Muslim way, how do you know the Muslim way is the right way?
Firstly the ONLY way to become a Jew is that you have to be BORN a Jew! So that rules Judaism out of the equation because what kind of religion does'nt invite others to join it? Is the lord of that religion that merciless and racist that to become a follower of that faith you have to be born into it?
Secondly the Christian has already reproduced the Bible in over a thousand languages and broadcasts it to the four corners of the globe, terrifying the nations of the world to accept the "BLOOD OF THE LAMB", that Christ died for the sins of mankind, that he (Jesus) is the only saviour. All this is against the clear evidence of his own Holy Book.There are too many contradictions, inconsistencies, additions and deletions of the Bible which even Christian scholars recognise!
Read these very interesting articles about the fallacys of Christian beliefs:
By Misha’al ibn Abdullah
“Then woe to those who write the book with their own hands and then say: ‘This is from God’, to traffic with it for a miserable price. Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby.” (Quran 2:79)
“And when there came to them a messenger from God, Confirming what was with them, a party of the people of the book threw away the book of God behind their backs as if (it had been something) they did not know.” (Quran 2:101)
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I (God) command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)
Let us start from the beginning. No Biblical scholar on this earth will claim that the Bible was written by Jesus himself. They all agree that the Bible was written after the departure of Jesus peace be upon him by his followers. Dr. W Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, a prestigious Christian evangelical mission, says:
“..Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men….It is Human, Yet Divine,”
Another Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says:
“...Not so the New Testament...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history...”
“It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors.”
“Yet, as a matter of fact, every book of the New Testament with the exception of the four great Epistles of St. Paul is at present more or less the subject of controversy, and interpolations are asserted even in these.”
Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, one of the most adamant conservative Christian defenders of the Trinity was himself driven to admit that:
“[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written”
After listing many examples of contradictory statements in the Bible, Dr. Frederic Kenyon says:
“Besides the larger discrepancies, such as these, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some variation of phrase in some copies [of the ancient manuscripts from which the Bible has been collected]. No one can say that these additions or omissions or alterations are matters of mere indifference”
Throughout this book you will find countless other similar quotations from some of Christendom’s leading scholars. Let us suffice with these for now.
Christians are, in general, good and decent people, and the stronger their convictions the more decent they are. This is attested to in the noble Quran:
“...and nearest among them (men) in love to the believers will you find those who say ‘we are Christians’: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. And when they listen to the revelation received by the messenger (Muhammad), you will see their eyes overflowing with tears for they recognize the truth: They pray: ‘Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses.’” (Quran 5:82-83)
All biblical “versions” of the Bible prior to the revised version of 1881 were dependent upon the “Ancient Copies” (those dating between five to six hundred years after Jesus). The revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to the “MOST ancient copies” which date fully three to four hundred years after Christ. It is only logical for us to concur that the closer a document is to the source the more authentic it is. Let us see what is the opinion of Christendom with regard to the most revised version of the Bible (revised in 1952 and then again in 1971):
“The finest version which has been produced in the present century” - (Church of England newspaper)
“A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence” - (Times literary supplement)
“The well loved characteristics of the authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation” - (Life and Work)
“The most accurate and close rendering of the original” - (The Times(
The publishers themselves (Collins) mention on page 10 of their notes:
“This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations”
Let us see what these thirty two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations have to say about the Authorized Version (AV), or as it is better known, the King James Version (KJV). In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the following:
“...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS..”
They go on to caution us that:
“...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses in their “AWAKE” Magazine dated 8th September 1957 published the following headline: “50,000 Errors in the Bible” wherein they say “..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible...errors which have crept into the Bible text...50,000 such serious errors...” After all of this, however, they go on to say: “...as a whole the Bible is accurate.” Let us have a look at only a very few of these errors.
In John 3:16 - AV(KJV) we read:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life..”
[…] this fabrication “begotten” has now been unceremoniously excised by these most eminent of Bible revisers. However, humanity did not have to wait 2000 years for this revelation.
In Maryam(19):88-98 of the noble Quran we read:
“And they say ‘God Most Compassionate has begotten a son!’ Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! The skies are ready to burst (at such a claim), and the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin. That they should ascribe a son to the Most Compassionate. But it is not befitting [the majesty of] the Most Compassionate that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to the Most Compassionate as a servant. He has taken account of all of them and has numbered them all exactly. And every one of them will come to him singly on the day of judgment. On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, will God most gracious bestow love. Verily, We have made this [Quran] easy in your tongue [O Muhammad] that you might deliver glad tidings to those who seek refuge [in God] and warn with it a people who are contentious. And how many a generation before them have we destroyed! Can you find a single one of them or hear from them so much as a whisper?”
In 1st Epistle of John 5:7 (King James Version) we find:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.”
As we have already seen in section 1.2.2.5, this verse is the closest approximation to what the Church calls the holy Trinity. However, as seen in that section, this cornerstone of the Christian faith has also been s****ped from the RSV by the same thirty two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, once again all according to the “most ancient manuscripts.” And once again, we find that the noble Quran revealed this truth over fourteen hundred years ago:
“O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of God, and his Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him so believe in God and his messengers. Say not “Three” desist It will be better for you for God 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 God as a disposer of affairs.” (Quran 4:171)
Prior to 1952 all versions of the Bible made mention of one of the most miraculous events associated with the prophet Jesus peace be upon him, that of his ascension into heaven:
“So then the lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God” (Mark 16:19)
…and once again in Luke:
“While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.” (Luke 24:51-52)
In the 1952 RSV Mark 16 ends at verse 8 and the rest is relegated in small print to a footnote (more on this later). Similarly, in the commentary on the verses of Luke 24, we are told in the footnotes of the NRSV Bible “Other ancient authorities lack “and was carried up into heaven’“ and “Other ancient authorities lack ‘and worshipped him.’” Thus, we see that the verse of Luke in it’s original form only said:
“While he blessed them, he parted from them. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”
It took centuries of “inspired correction” to give us Luke 24:51-52 in their current form.
As another example, in Luke 24:1-7 we read:
“Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spoke unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.”
Once again, in reference to verse 5, the footnotes say: “Other ancient authorities lack ‘He is not here but has risen’”
The examples are far too numerous to list here, however, you are encouraged to obtain a copy of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible for yourself and scan through the four gospels. You shall be hard pressed to find even two consecutive pages that do not contain the words “Other ancient authorities lack...” or “Other ancient authorities add...” etc.
We will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction “According to.....” such as “The Gospel according to Saint Matthew,” “The Gospel according to Saint Luke,” “The Gospel according to Saint Mark,” “The Gospel according to Saint John.” The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries it’s author’s signature. It has just been assumed that they were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence proves that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:
“...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus).” (Matthew 9:9)
It does not take a rocket scientist to see that neither Jesus nor Matthew wrote this verse of “Matthew.” Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Although many people have hypothesized that it is possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.
This observation is by no means limited to the New Testament. There is even proof that at least parts of Deuteronomy were neither written by God nor by Moses. This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read:
“So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....”
Did Moses write his own obituary? Joshua also speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not written by their supposed authors.
The authors of the RSV by Collins say that the author of “Kings” is “Unknown.” If they knew it to be the word of God they would have undoubtedly attributed it to him. Rather, they have chosen to honestly say “Author... Unknown.” But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then be claimed to have been “inspired”? Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is “Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others.” Ecclesiastics: “Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon.” Ruth: “Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel,” and on and on.
Let us have a slightly more detailed look at only one book of the New Testament:
“The author of the Book of Hebrews is unknown. Martin Luther suggested that Apollos was the author... Tertullian said that Hebrews was a letter of Barnabas... Adolf Harnack and J. Rendel Harris speculated that it was written by Priscilla (or Prisca). William Ramsey suggested that it was done by Philip. However, the traditional position is that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews... Eusebius believed that Paul wrote it, but Origen was not positive of Pauline authorship.”
Is this how we define “inspired by God”?
As seen in chapter one, St. Paul and his church after him, were responsible of making wholesale changes to the religion of Jesus (pbuh) after his departure and were further responsible for mounting a massive campaign of death and torture of all Christians who refused to renounce the teachings of the apostles in favor of the Pauline doctrines. All but the Gospels acceptable to the Pauline faith were then systematically destroyed or re-written. Rev. Charles Anderson Scott has the following to say:
“It is highly probable that not one of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) was in existence in the form which we have it, prior to the death of Paul. And were the documents to be taken in strict order of chronology, the Pauline Epistles would come before the synoptic Gospels.”
This statement is further confirmed by Prof. Brandon: “The earliest Christian writings that have been preserved for us are the letters of the apostle Paul”
In the latter part of the second century, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth says:
“As the brethren desired me to write epistles (letters), I did so, and these the apostles of the devil have filled with tares (undesirable elements), exchanging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared with these.”
The Quran confirms this with the words:
“Then woe to those who write the book (of Allah/God) with their own hands and then say: ‘This is from Allah’, to traffic with it for a miserable price. Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby.” (Quran 2:79)
Victor Tununensis, a sixth century African Bishop related in his Chronicle (566 AD) that when Messala was consul at Costantinople (506 AD), he “censored and corrected” the Gentile Gospels written by persons considered illiterate by the Emperor Anastasius. The implication was that they were altered to conform to sixth century Christianity which differed from the Christianity of previous centuries.
These “corrections” were by no means confined to the first centuries after Christ. Sir Higgins says:
“It is impossible to deny that the Bendictine Monks of St. Maur, as far as Latin and Greek language went, were very learned and talented, as well as numerous body of men. In Cleland’s ‘Life of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury’, is the following passage: ‘Lanfranc, a Benedictine Monk, Archbishop of Canterbury, having found the Scriptures much corrupted by copyists, applied himself to correct them, as also the writings of the fathers, agreeably to the orthodox faith, secundum fidem orthodoxam.”
In other words, the Christian scriptures were re-written in order to conform to the doctrines of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and even the writings of the early church fathers were “corrected” so that the changes would not be discovered. Sir Higgins goes on to say, “The same Protestant divine has this remarkable passage: ‘Impartiality exacts from me the confession, that the orthodox have in some places altered the Gospels’.”
The author then goes on to demonstrate how a massive effort was undertaken in Constantinople, Rome, Canterbury, and the Christian world in general in order to “correct” the Gospels and destroy all manuscripts before this period.
Theodore Zahan, illustrated the bitter conflicts within the established churches in Articles of the Apostolic Creed. He points out that the Roman Catholics accuse the Greek Orthodox Church of remodeling the text of the holy scriptures by additions and omissions with both good as well as evil intentions. The Greek Orthodox, on the other hand, accuse the Roman Catholics of straying in many places very far away from the original text. In spite of their differences, they both join forces to condemn the non-conformist Christians of deviating from “the true way” and condemn them as heretics. The heretics in turn condemn the Catholics for having “recoined the truth like forgers.” The author concludes “Do not facts support these accusations?”
14. “And from those who said: ‘We are Christians,’ We took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.
15. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come to you, explaining to you much of that which you used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Indeed, there has come to you a light from Allah and a plain Scripture.
16. Wherewith Allah guides him who seeks His good pleasure unto paths of peace. He brings them out of darkness by His will into light, and guides them to a straight path.
17. They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then has the least power against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He creates what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things.
18. The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones. Say; Why then does He punish you for your sins? No, you are but mortals of His creating. He forgives whom He will, and punishes whom He will. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and unto Him is the return (of all).
19. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come unto you to make things plain after a break in (the series of) the messengers, lest you should say: There came not unto us a messenger of cheer nor any Warner. Now has a messenger of cheer and a Warner come unto you. And Allah is Able to do all things.” (Quran 5:14-19)
St. Augustine himself, a man acknowledged and looked up to by both Protestants and Catholics alike, professed that there were secret doctrines in the Christian religion and that:
“…there were many things true in the Christian religion which it was not convenient for the vulgar [common people] to know, and that some things were false, but convenient for the vulgar to believe in them.”
Sir Higgins admits:
“It is not unfair to suppose that in these withheld truths we have part of the modern Christian mysteries, and I think it will hardly be denied that the church, whose highest authorities held such doctrines, would not scruple to retouch the sacred writings.”
Even the epistles attributed to Paul were not written by him. After years of research, Catholics and Protestants alike agree that of the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul only seven are genuinely his. They are: Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philipians, Philemon, and 1 Thessalonians.
Christian sects are not even agreed on the definition of what exactly is an “inspired” book of God. The Protestants are taught that there are 66 truly “inspired” books in the Bible, while the Catholics have been taught that there are 73 truly “inspired” books, not to mention the many other sects and their “newer” books, such as the Mormons, etc. As we shall see shortly, the very first Christians, for many generations, did not follow either the 66 books of the Protestants, nor the 73 books of the Catholics. Quite the opposite, they believed in books that were, many generations later, “recognized” to be fabrications and apocrypha by a more enlightened age than that of the apostles.
Source: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/584/
2.1 Christian scholars recognize contradictions p2
In all, Tischendorf uncovered over 14,800 "corrections" to the manuscript by nine (some say ten) separate "correctors," which had been applied to this one manuscript over a period from 400AD to 1200AD . Although he was well known to be quite ruthless and unscrupulous in his dealings with his fellow Christian, still, he strove in his dealings with his holy texts themselves to be as honest and sincere as humanly possible. For this reason he could not understand how the scribes could have so continuously and so callously
"allow themselves to bring in here and there changes, which were not simple verbal ones, but materially affected the meaning" or why they "did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one."
14,80014,800 errors "corrections" to only one Biblical manuscript
In the book "The Story of the Manuscripts" by Rev. George E. Merrill, the good Reverend quotes Prof. Arnold as stating:
"there are not more than fifteen hundred to two thousand places2,000 errors in which there is any uncertainty whatever as to the true text.."
this number being in the respected Professor's estimation quite minuscule. Prof. Arnold then goes on to explain how all of these "variant readings" are undeserving of his attention with only about a dozen being of any doctrinal importance. In this manner, many thousands of additions, omissions, and "corrections" of the church over the ages are suddenly transformed to only a dozen and then quickly reduced to none. Notice how casually and quickly centuries of tampering with the text of the "inspired word of God" is brushed off and justified?.
The reader is encouraged to go back and read all of these inserted verses that the conservative Trinitarian scholars themselves now admit were later forgeries of the Church. Notice the intricate detail that is to be found in them. Notice the attention to the minutest aspect that is lavished upon these inserted verses. Notice how "spiritual" they are. Notice how truly "inspired" they are. What does all of this tell us?
Please keep in mind that these are only but a few of the most outstanding of these discrepancies. In many cases the translators appear to have been unable to determine the true wording in any truly scientific and unbiased fashion, thus, they appear to have been reduced to such actions as choosing the version adopted by the majority of the "ancient authorities." I am sure no one will mistake this for a truly scientific determination (e.g. perhaps the minority version is found in the most ancient manuscripts, as seen above). Think about it.
"O People of the Book! Our messenger has come to you revealing to you much of what you used to hide of the Book and forgiving much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a plain scripture"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Maida(5):15
As we have seen, these are not simply the ramblings of a small number of obscure crackpot Christian-haters. This information has become so well recognized and acknowledged in the Christian West today that even their own encyclopedias affirm it, and although no one will ever mistake an encyclopedia for an official Christian reference, still, this does go to show the extent that this information has become accepted in the West today. Grolier's encyclopedia says under the heading "Jesus Christ":
"The Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the first four books of the New Testament of the Bible, are the principal sources for the life of Jesus. These works are primarily testimonies to the faith of the early Christian community, however, and have to be used critically as evidence for the historical Jesus. The methods include source, form, and redaction criticism...These methods provide criteria to sift through the redaction and tradition and reconstruct the message and the mission of the historical Jesus...Application of the critical methods described above reveals that the gospel tradition apparently started originally with Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist
(Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34).The stories concerning the birth of Jesus were probably later additions. These stories--the annunciations to Mary and Joseph, their journey to Bethlehem for the Roman census, and Jesus' birth there
(Luke 2:1-7); the visits of the shepherds (Luke 2:8-20) and the three magi from the East
(Matt. 2:1-12); and the flight of the family to Egypt to escape the massacre of young boys that had been ordered by King Herod
(Matt. 2:13-23)--may be characterized conveniently, if loosely, as 'Christological midrash,' expressions of Christological faith cast into narrative form. If there are any factual elements in them, these will be found among the items on which Matthew and Luke agree: the names of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus; the dating of Jesus' birth toward the end of the reign of Herod the Great (d. 4 BC); and, less certainly, the Bethlehem location of the birth" (emphasis added).
"The Five Gospels," is a 550 page book containing translations of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It was the result of a six year study by 24 Christian scholars from some of the most prestigious universities the Western world. They decided to produce a translation of the Gospels which would be uncolored by the translator's personal faith. It was decided that this translation was to give the reader an honest picture of what Jesus (pbuh) truly said. They scanned the text for the words of Jesus (pbuh), and collect an index of over 1,500 such sayings. They then tested the validity of each of these sayings, one at a time, to see whether Jesus (pbuh) truly said each one. They then produced a fresh translation, color-coded to show authentic Jesuit sayings and those of an unreliable nature. Their conclusion (page 5) was:
"Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him."
They go on to reveal that:
"biblical scholars and theologians alike have learned to distinguish the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith. It has been a painful lesson for both the church and scholarship. The distinction between the two figures is the difference between a historical person who lived in a particular time and place...and a figure who has been assigned a mythical role, in which he descends from heaven to rescue humankind and, of course, eventually returns there."
Well then, if 82% of the "words of Jesus" found in the Bible were apparently never spoken by him then where did they come from? Some of the sources demonstrated by the authors are:
"The concept of plagiarism was unknown in the ancient world. Authors freely copied from predecessors without acknowledgment. Sages became the repository of free-floating proverbs and witticisms. For the first Christians, Jesus was a legendary sage: it was proper to attribute the world's wisdom to him. The proverb in
Mark 2:17, for example, is attested in secular sources (Plutarch and Diogenes for example)...in the parallel to the Markan passage, Matthew adds a sentence taken from the prophet Hosea
(Matt 9:13)."
Also:
"Hard sayings are frequently softened in the process of transmission to adapt them to the conditions of daily living...Variations in difficult saying often betray the struggle of the early Christian community to interpret or adapt sayings to it's own situations... Matthew's version of the aphorism "The last will be first and the first last"
(Matt 20:16) is softened in Mark 10:31 to "MANY of the first will be last, and of the last MANY will be first"."
And probably most revealing:
"Christian conviction eventually overwhelms Jesus: he is made to confess what Christians had come to believe...The contrast between Christian language or viewpoint and the language or viewpoint of Jesus is a very important clue to the real voice of Jesus, the language of Jesus was distinctive, as was his style and perspective."
The above is only a very small sampling of the very large cache of evidence clearly showing the Bible to have been seriously distorted and altered. To this day it is being continuously edited, corrected, and modified. This is not to say that Christians are not good and honest people in search of the truth. Quite the opposite. Among them are some of the most decent and moral people on this earth. The goal of this book is only to show that the Christian faith as it stands today is not the same one preached by Jesus peace be upon him to his followers nineteen hundred years ago. This is exactly what the Qur'an has been asserting for over fourteen hundred years now.
"O People of the Book! Why do you reject the Signs of God, when you [yourselves] bear witness [to their truth] ?. O People of the Book! Why do you clothe Truth with falsehood, and conceal the Truth, while you have knowledge?"
The noble Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):70-71
"Say: 'O People of the Book! Why do you reject the Signs of God, when God is Himself witness to all you do?' Say: 'O People of the Book! Why do you obstruct those who believe from the path of God, Seeking to make it crooked, while you were yourselves witnesses? But God is not unaware of what you do'"
The noble Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):98-99
"Truly, the Religion in the Sight of God is Islam (literally: "the submission"). Nor did those who were given the scripture dissent therefrom except after knowledge had come to them, through envy of each other. But whosoever disbelieves in the Signs of God, [then surely,] God is swift in calling to account."
The noble Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):19
"They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a party who stand [for that which is right], they recite the revelations of Allah throughout the night, falling prostrate [before Him]."
The noble Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):113
"And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in God, and in that which was sent down unto you, and in that which was sent down unto them, humbling themselves before God: They will not sell the Signs of God for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift to take account."
The noble Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):199
"O people of the Book! Now has come unto you Our messenger, revealing to you much of what you used to hide in the Book, and passing over much. Indeed, there has come to you from God a light and a plain Scripture"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Maida(5):15
Source: http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/l...y/ch2.1.1.html
The illogical Trinity
Indeed one of the most illogical doctrines to have been invented is non other than the trinity, and no it is not a mystery, it just an illogical doctrine, not a mystery of God. Trinity is three persons, yet they say these three persons are one, that is not a mystery, that is simply bad math and bad logic and made up logic! Three is three, four is four, and one is one, three persons are three persons, three persons are not person, I, Umar, and Bassam are three different persons, we are not one person! If you saw three of us standing outside a shop would you say we are one person or three? Three off course! So the same thing with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are three persons and not one.
To further show how illogical the Trinity is, Jesus the Son dies, and as you know Jesus is God, but if God does then logically who runs the universe and the universal affairs? Now since Trinity believes in three persons they will say the Father does, but that is very illogical indeed! So when Jesus dies the Father starts running things, so therefore part of God dies?! One God dies, and the other one continues to run the affairs of the universe while the other one is dead?! So while the Father runs the universe, you have the son Jesus laying dead and buried! Let us make it simple:
Muslim: Is Jesus God?
Christian: Yes
Muslim: Did Jesus die?
Christian: Yes
Muslim: And Jesus is God?
Christian: Yes
Muslim: So Jesus died and Jesus is God so this mean God died
Christian: erm
Muslim: So who ran the world when Jesus died?
Christian: I believe in Trinity
Muslim: And?
Christian: Well I believe in three persons, the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit
Muslim: And Jesus is the Son right?
Christian: Correct
Muslim: And the Son died
Christian: Yes, and while the son was dead the Father and Holy Spirit were still alive and so they continued to run the affairs of the world
Muslim: So Jesus who is God is lying dead and buried, while the Father and Holy Spirit who are also God are running the universe?
Christian: Yes
Muslim: So one God is dead, and the other 2 run the affairs of the universe, may I know how this is all one God?
Christian: It is a mystery!
And that basically sums it up! While one God is dead, the other 2 run the universe! What an illogical insulting doctrine against the true monotheistic God! This is no different than pagans who had many different Gods for many different purposes, one God was for rain, one for sun, one for night etc etc, here we have the same thing, one God (Jesus) dies and the other 2 Gods carry on running the universe while the Son God is dead.
And Allah Knows Best!
Source: http://muslim-responses.com/Illogical_Trinity/Illogical_Trinity_
Robert Ingersoll and he makes the following comments in
Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 4, p. 266-67:
Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost third.
Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both.
The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son.
The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the same age as the other two.
So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son and the Holy Ghost God, and these three Gods make one God. According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three time one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar: if we add two to one we have but one. Each one equal to himself and to the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.
Christians are faced with a dilemma.
The Bible says in the Old Testament, "I, even I, am the Lord; and besides me there is no savior"
(Isa. 43:11). "Salvation belongeth unto the Lord . . ."
(Psalms 3:8. "For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour . . ."
(Isaiah 43:3).
According to the Old Testament, only God can be the Savior. In order for Jesus Christ to be the Savior, he must also be God.
Trinity advocates use:
"I and the Father are one"
(John 10:30);
". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father"
(John 17:22);
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God"
(John 1"1);
". . . that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me and I in Him"
". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. . ."
(John 14:9)
". . .Holy Father keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."
John 17:11
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
Colossians 3:8,9.
The Bible has many more verses denying the Trinity than it has confirming it:
"Why callest me good? There is none good but one, that is God"
(Matthew 19:17)
". . .for my Father is greater than I. . ."
(John 14:28)
"My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."
(John 7:16)
"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt."
(Matthew 26:39)
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
(Matthew 27:46)
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
(Mark 13:32)
"Who has gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God"
(Peter 3:22)
There are, of course, more scriptures. The passages quoted are a representative of the opposing concepts.
Here is the dilemma. Christians know that in order for Jesus to be the savior of mankind, he must also be God. The bible says so. If he is not God, then he cannot be the savior. His death would be meaningless. So Christians have invented the Trinity to explain Christ's divinity. He is man. He is God. He is both. He must be in order to be the savior. Unfortunately, he is ambivalent at best. Sometimes he claims to be one with God. Sometimes he admits God knows things which he doesn't know and does things which he cannot do. Christians go to nearly any length to prove the Trinity including the declaration that its a
"mystery" and we
"just don't have the mind to understand it". Is the bible the perfect, inerrant word of God? The Christian created Trinity doctrine and the contradictions which must accompany the doctrine sound a resounding
"No"! So how did the Trinity doctrine/dogma come into existence?
The origins of the Trinity doctrine are appalling. Like most historic issues pertaining to Christianity, there was much deceit and bloodshed. Many lives were lost before
'Trinitarianism' was finally adopted.
As many Christians know, the word
"trinity" does not appear in the Bible. It doesn't because it is a doctrine which evolved in early Christianity. It was a manipulated, bloody and deadly process before it finally arrived as an
'accepted' doctrine of the church.
CONSTANTINE - THE TRINITY PROCESS BEGINS
Flavius Valerius Constantius (c. 285-337 AD), Constantine the Great, was the son of Emperor Constantius I. When his father died in 306 AD, Constantine became emperor of Britain, Gaul (now France), and Spain. Gradually he gained control of the entire Roman empire.
Theological differences regarding Jesus Christ began to manifest in Constantine's empire when two major opponents surfaced and debated whether Christ was a created being (Arius doctrine) or not created but rather coequal and coeternal to God his father (Athanasius doctrine).
The theological warfare between the Arius and Athanasius doctrinal camps became intense. Constantine realized that the his empire was being threatened by the doctrinal rift. Constantine began to pressure the church to come to terms with its differences before the results became disastrous to his empire. Finally the emperor called a council at Nicea in 325 AD to resolve the dispute.
Only a fraction of existing bishops, 318, attended. This equated to about 18% of all the bishops in the empire. Of the 318, approximately 10 were from the Western part of Constantine's empire, making the voting lopsided at best. The emperor manipulated, coerced and threatened the council to be sure it voted for what he believed rather than an actual consensus of the bishops.
The present day Christian church touts Constantine as the first Christian emperor, however, his
'Christianity' was politically motivated. Whether he personally accepted Christian doctrine is highly doubtful. He had one of his sons murdered in addition to a nephew, his brother in law and possibly one of his wives. He continued to retain his title of high priest in a pagan religion until his death. He was not baptized until he was on his deathbed.
THE FIRST TWO THIRDS OF THE TRINITY - THE NICAEAN CREED
The majority of bishops voted under pressure from Constantine for the Athanasius doctrine. A creed was adopted which favored Athanasius's theology. Arius was condemned and exiled. Several of the Bishops left before the voting to avoid the controversy. Jesus Christ was approved to be "one substance" with God the Father. It is interesting that even now, the Eastern and Western Orthodox churches disagree with each other regarding this doctrine, the Western churches having had no influence in the
'voting'.
Two of the bishops who voted pro-Arius were also exiled and Arius's writings were destroyed. Constantine decreed that anyone caught with Arius documents would be subject to the death penalty.
The Nicaean Creed read as follows:
I believe in one God: the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God: begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made. . .
Even with the adoption of the Nicaean Creed, problems continued and in a few years, the Arian faction began to regain control. They became so powerful that Constantine restored them and denounced the Athanasius group.
Arius's exile was ended along with the bishops who sided with him. It was now Athanasius who would be banished.
When Constantine died (after being baptized by an Arian Bishop), his son reinstated the Arian philosophy and bishops and condemned the Athanasius group.
In the following years the political foes continue to struggle and finally the Arians misused their power and were overthrown. The religious/political controversy caused widespread bloodshed and killing. In 381 AD, Emperor Theodosius (a Trinitarian) convened a council in Constantinople. Only Trinitarian bishops were invited to attend. 150 bishops attended and voted to alter the Nicene creed to include the Holy Spirit as a part of the Godhead. The Trinity doctrine was now official for both the church and the state.
Dissident bishops were expelled from the church, and excommunicated.
THE ATHANASIUS CREED COMPLETES THE TRIUNE GODHEAD
The Athanasius (Trinitarian) Creed was finally established in (probably) the 5th century. It was not written by Athanasius but adopted his name. It stated in part:
"We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God."
By the 9th century the creed was established in Spain, France and Germany. It had taken centuries from the time of Christ for the trinity doctrine to catch on. Government and church politics were the reasons the trinity came into existence and became church orthodoxy.
As you have seen, the Trinitarian doctrine came from deceit, politics, a pagan emperor and warring factions who brought about death and bloodshed.
THE CHRISTIAN TRINITY - ONE MORE IN THE PARADE OF TRINITIES
Why the original clamor to elevate Jesus and the holy spirit to positions equal to the Christian/Judaeo God? Simply, the pagan world was quite used to having
"three gods" or
"trinities" as their deities. The trinity satisfied the majority of Christians who had come from pagan backgrounds. Christianity didn't get rid of the pagan trinities, it adopted them as it did so many other pagan traditions.
OTHER TRINITIES
Hinduism embraced the triune godhead of Brahma, the god of creation ; Vishnu the god of maintenance and Siva the god of destruction. One of Egypt's many trinities was Horus, Isis and Osiris.
The founders of the early Christian church had no idea that the Trinity concept would evolve, be voted upon by politicians, forced by emperors and eventually become an integral part of Christianity such as we have it today. Is it any wonder that its
"difficult" to explain?
Is there one Christian God or Three In One? The majority of Christian churches hold to the Trinity doctrine but there are still Christian church holdouts who reject the teaching.
Just like at Burger King, "you can have it your way".
Source: http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/trinity.html
Also look at:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thego...nityfarce.html
PAUL
AND THE INVENTION OF CHRISTIANITY
On the road to Damascus, while persecuting the early Christians, after the death of Jesus, a man claimed that he saw a vision, a vision of Jesus. The man was Saul of Tarsus (Latinized as Paul). From there on, the teachings of Christ were transformed and Romanized and modern Christianity was born.
The vision in which Paul claims that Jesus gave him an authority to teach in his name is recorded a number of times in the New Testament. If we were to analyze these variant descriptions, made by the same man, as in a court of law, they would be thrown out as fabricated
"evidence" because of inconsistencies.
For example:
1. Acts (9:3-7)
[3] Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.
[4] And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
[5] And he said,
"Who are you, Lord?" And he said,
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; [6] but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do."
[7] The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
In this description, it is stated that only Paul fell to the ground. And, the other men who traveled with him did not see anything but heard a voice.
Compare this to the next description:
2. Acts (22:6-9)
[6] "As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me.
[7] And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'
[8] And I answered,
`Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me,
`I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.'
[9] Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
In this description, in complete contradiction to the one above, Paul states that those who traveled with him did not hear the voice but saw the light. The previous description said that they did not see anything but heard a voice!
3. Acts (26:14)
[14] And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language,
`Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.'
In this description, Paul says that they
"all" fell to the ground whereas in the previous description, only Paul had fallen to the ground.
In any court of law, anywhere in the world where justice is upheld, this testimony of Paul would have been
thrown out as fabrication and he would have been prosecuted for perjury.
Paul's Christianity is not what Jesus taught:
The German philosopher, Fredrick Neitzsche recognized Paul's role in constructing the
"new" Christianity, and was convinced of deception:
In Nietzsche's view, the very worst of them was Paul, the actual founder of the Christian church and doctrine. Nietzsche was convinced that Paul was not sincere in his beliefs, that "his requirement was power." Nietzsche cannot bring himself to believe that Paul, "whose home was the principal center of Stoic enlightenment," is sincere when he offers up a hallucination as proof that The Redeemer still lives. Paul invented the doctrines of
'eternal life' and
'the Judgement' as a means to his ends. In Die Morgenrote (translated by R. J. Hollingdale as Daybreak, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982), Nietzsche had earlier discussed Paul's frustrations at being unable to master, and to comply with, Jewish law, and hence Paul "sought about for a means of destroying" that law. Christianity offered Paul just the weapon he had been seeking.
[A 40-42; Die Morgenrote 68,
http://www.debunker.com/texts/anti_chr.html, retrieved 12/08/'01].
Paul destroyed the Law:
Romans 3:28
[28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Romans 7:4
[4] Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.
1 Corinthians 10:25
[25] Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
Contrary to what Paul taught, Jesus stated that he came to fulfil the Law and not abolish it. He further states that whoever takes the least bit out of the Law will be "the least" in the Kingdom of Heaven. Since Paul took the "whole" law out, according to Jesus' criteria, Paul is the "least" of the "least"!Consider these words of Jesus:
Matthew 5:17-20:
[17] "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
[19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. "
The Law laid down strict dietary laws, for example, the Book of Deuteronomy, a part of the Torah, states:
And the swine, because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch.
(Deuteronomy 14:8)
Furthermore, the concept of salvation that Paul brought into Christianity from Greek myth was also alien to what Jesus taught. According to Paul, believing in the
"lord" Jesus and confessing that he was raised from the dead, saves a person.
He says:
Romans 10:9
[9] "Because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. "
1 Corinthians 15:14:
[14] If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain
This is unequivocally against what Jesus himself taught. Christians need to ask themselves here, "Whom do we believe, Paul or Jesus?"
Jesus says explicitly:
Matthew 7:21-23
[21] "Not every one who says to me,
`Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
[22] On that day many will say to me,
`Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' [23] And then will I declare to them,
`I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'
Matthew 19:17
[17] And he said to him,
"Why do you ask me about what is good? One (God) there is who is good. If you would enter life,keep the commandments."
James, who knew Jesus much closer than Paul says:
James 2:26
[26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
The Original Sin:
Christianity and Islam differ regarding the concept of the Original Sin. According to Christianity, Adam and Eve, the first humans sinned when they ate the forbidden fruit. They were expelled from heaven and sin entered the world. Every child of Adam, you and I, according to Christianity has inherited this sin (as genetic inheritance). Therefore, every male and female is born stained with sin and is therefore destined to hell, from birth. This belief in Christianity gave rise to the doctrine of Atonement. According to this doctrine, God sacrificed his
"only begotten" son, Jesus to wash away the sins of the world. The only thing people have to do to wash away their hereditary stain is to believe in Jesus as God's son and that he died for them.
Islam does not agree with all this. According to the Koran, every one is responsible for their own doings and nobody can carry the burden of another. God is forgiving and if a person sincerely repents, amends and does what is good and righteous, God forgives. Adam did not ask us before eating the fruit, so how can we be blamed?
In any society, where justice is one of the highest valued morals, killing an innocent man (Jesus) to wash away the sins of the guilty would be condemned as immoral, yet billions of people rejoice over this
"gift" of injustice! Once again, the source of conflict is Paul and not Jesus. Jesus never talked about atonement or a
"free-ride" through the blood of an innocent man.
On the contrary he said, "…If you would enter life, keep the commandments"
(Matthew 19:17).It was Paul who brought the concept of the Original Sin into Christianity.
He says:
Romans 5:12
[12] "Therefore, as sin came into the world through ONE man.."
1 Corinthians 15:21-22
[21] "For as by a man came death (sin), by a man also has come the resurrection of the dead.
[22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
As we saw above, Jesus contradicts Paul. Not only that, the Old Testament contradicts Paul as well:
Ezekiel 18:20-22
[20] The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
[21] "But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
[22] None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live.
2 Chronicles 25:4
[4] But he did not put their children to death, according to what is written in the law, in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded,
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, or the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin."
Major Yeats Brown, in his book, Life of a Bengal Lancer, summarized the concept of atonement in Christianity. He states:
"No heathen tribe has conceived so grotesque an idea, involving as it does the assumption, that man was born with a hereditary stain upon him: and that this stain (for which he was not personally responsible) was to be atoned for; and the creator of all things had to sacrifice his only begotten son, to neutralize this mysterious curse."
Paul actually transformed the strict monotheism that Jesus proclaimed into a religion that is closer to Greek mythology, than it is towards either Judaism or Islam. Things like the
"only begotten son", atonement for the sins of humanity etc. were all alien to the strict monotheism of Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad and all the prophets of Israel.
John H. Randall, emeritus professor of philosophy at Columbia University, wrote:
"Christianity, at the hands of Paul, became a mystical system of redemption, much like the cult of Isis, and the other sacramental or mystery religions of the day"
(Hellenistic Ways of Deliverance and the Making of the Christian Synthesis, 1970, p. 154,
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/...Bibleyama.html, retrieved 12/0-8/'01).
Greek cults were prevalent in the Mediterranean long before Jesus was born. They were brought into Christianity by Paul to make doctrine
"inclusive" thereby destroying the strict monotheism that Jesus proclaimed. Some of the ones, with their parallels in Christianity, are:
1.
Attis of Phrygia (later called Galatia in Asia Minor):
He was regarded as the
"only begotten" son and savior. He was bled to death on March 24th on the foot of a pine tree. He also rose from the dead and his death and resurrection was celebrated by his followers.
"A Christian writer of the fourth century AD, recounted ongoing disputes between Pagans and Christians over the remarkable similarities of the death and resurrection of their two Gods. The Pagans argued that their God was older and therefore original. The Christians admitted Christ came later, but claimed Attis was a work of the devil whose similarity to Christ, and the fact he predated Christ, were intended to confuse and mislead men. This was apparently the stock answer -- the Christian apologist Tertullian makes the same argument."
(
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker...sts_Attis.html, retrieved 12/08/'01)
2.
Adonis of Syria:
He was born of a virgin mother. He also suffered death for the redemption of mankind, arising from the dead in spring.
3.
Bacchus of Greece or Dionesius
He was termed the
"only begotten" son of Jupiter. He was born of a virgin named Detemer on December 25th. To his followers, he was
"redeemer". He called himself
"Alpha and Omega" i.e. similar to the words used for Jesus by the author of the Book of Revelation.
4.
Orisis of the Egyptians
He was born of a virgin mother on December 29th. He was betrayed by one Typhen (remember Judas) and was slain. He was buried (just like Jesus), remained in hell for two to three days (just like Jesus), and then rose from the dead (just like Jesus).
5.
Mithra, the Persian Sun-God
He was also born of a virgin on the 25th of December. Christmas and Easter were the most important festivals of the Mithras. They also had other surprising similarities with Paul's Christianity like the Eucharist supper etc.
Dr. Arnold Meyer, professor of Theology at the Zurich University, after describing the basic Christian beliefs of today, i.e. the divinity of Christ, atonement etc. states:
If this is Christianity, then such Christianity was founded by St. Paul and not by our lord
(Jesus or Paul, page 122)
Source:
Asadi, Muhammed. Islam or Christianity. 1989. Karachi, Pakistan
Paul Contradicts himself
Written by Abdullah Smith
Paul has been denounced by theologians and scholars throughout history, the hatred which he incited by his teachings against the Jewish Law, and the political support he gave to the Roman emperors, show how desperate he was to destroy the Nazarene sect, the followers of the early Jesus movement, known as The Way (Acts 9:2, 19:23) Paul’s claim to being Pharisaic is lying of the highest order. Paul was a Gnostic by the style of his own literature! He persecuted the followers of Jesus to please the heart of Popea, but when he failed; he burst into rage, inventing “Christianity” by preaching against the Jewish Law and the doctrines. He produced Christianity for the sole purpose of converting Gentiles. In order to win Gentiles, he became like a Gentile, to win Jews, he became like a Jew. The verse reads:
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. (1 Corinthians 9:19-21)
This Pauline deceptive tactic is vigorously being used today. In Africa, for example, the mosques are constructed to resemble churches, so Muslims are deceived into entering the church, believing that it’s a mosque.
Building churches that look similar to mosques: Muslims were turned off from entering churches because they looked different, that also made them feel very uncomfortable with them. They also changed the internal structure of the church to look similar to a mosque; the people sit on the floor and in lines.
(Christian Missionaries Sweeping the Islamic World, Shiekh Salman Al-Odeh)
This is practical evidence that Christians follow Paul, not Jesus. The blatant deception to deceive unwary Muslims is directly inspired from 1 Corinthians 9:19-21.
Another example demonstrates how a Christian tries to imitate a fasting Muslim, trying to “win her” in accordance with Paul’s teachings.
I decided to ask Sarah to my fellowship group. But she said no. She didn't think Christians would accept her. It was important to her that Christians respect her beliefs and get to know her as a person, instead of just dismissing her because she was a Muslim. I decided I would remain her friend and keep telling her about Jesus.
During the term, the Muslim Holy Month of Ramadan began. Sarah explained to me that it was their month of fasting. Suddenly it dawned on me: This was my opportunity to show Sarah I accepted her and really wanted her to know Christ.
"I'm fasting today," I told Sarah one morning about a week into the fasting period.
"Why?" she asked.
"I just want to fast with you," I answered.
She stared at me in disbelief. I've been told that Muslims often asked their friends to offer encouragement by fasting with them. But at our boarding school, no one wanted to give up their already meager share of food. Sarah had not even asked me. She thought since I was a Christian, I would have nothing to do with a Muslim tradition.
"Why are you fasting with me when you are a Christian?" Sarah asked me later. I told her I didn't think there was anything wrong with fasting, and I was only doing it to show her that I accepted her and respected her religion.
(Read the story at
http://www.christianitytoday.com/cl/2000/001/8.54.html)
The Pagan roots of Christianity cannot be denied, Christians only fast because they want to “win Muslims”. They don’t fast because the Bible commands it.
Muslims are not encouraged to become deceived; they fast only to “win Muslims” is the sheer embodiment of Paul’s teachings. Is there any greater evidence to show they follow Paul, the corrupter of the Gospel?
It was Thomas Jefferson who said: "Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the Gospel of Jesus”.
The Contradictions
(1) Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (Romans 3:20)
Contradicted by:
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Romans 2:13)
(2) Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Galatians 6:2)
Contradicted by:
For each one should carry his own load. (Galatians 6:5)
(4) For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, (1 Peter 3:18)
Contradicted by:
The wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the traitor for the upright. (Proverbs 21:18)
(5) Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Hebrews 13:4)
Contradicted by:
But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. (1 Corinthians 7:28)
(7) No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. (1 John 4:12)
Contradicted by:
I saw the LORD standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered. (Amos 9:1)
(8) If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom: (Job 31:33)
Contradicted by:
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1Timothy 2:14)
* The verse says that Adam sinned, yet the New Testament says that Adam did not sin, but only Eve sinned.
According to Jesus, Paul was a hypocrite:
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. (Matthew 23:13)
Compared with:
Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." (Acts 23:6)
Paul wants people to be sinners!
I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 1 Corinthians 7:6-7
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. (1 Tim. 1:15)
Paul testifies there is nothing good in him:
More Contradictions
(1) Full God or Emptied God:
“Christ Jesus who, though existing in the form of God, did not consider his equality with God something to cling to, but emptied Himself as he took on the form of a slave” (Philippians 2:6)
Contradicted by:
“For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell (Colossians 1:19)
(2) God or Mediator or None:
“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5)
Contradicted by:
“But there is no call for an intermediary in case of one, and God is one” (Galatians 3:20)
(3) The Law Abolished or the Law Upheld:
“He brought the hostility to an end, by abolishing: the Law of commandments with its regulations” (Ephesians 2:14)
Contradicted by:
“Do we then overthrow the Law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the Law.” (Romans 3:31)
(4) Righteousness; with the Law or without the Law:
“not a single human being will be made righteous in God’s sight through observance of the Law” (Romans 3:20)
Contradicted by:
“For not the hearers of the Law are righteous before God but those who practice the Law will be pronounced righteous” (Romans 2:13)
(5) Salvation; by Confession or by Deeds:
“if you confess with your lips the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9)
Contradicted by:
“For he (God) will repay according to each one’s deeds; to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life” (Romans 2:6)
(Source: Roshan Enam, Follow Jesus or Follow Paul? p. 65-55)
(6) He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (Job 9:6)
Contradicted by:
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5)
(7) One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. (Ecclesiastes 1:4)
Contradicted by:
The earth is broken up, the earth is split asunder, the earth is thoroughly shaken. The earth reels like a drunkard, it sways like a hut in the wind; so heavy upon it is the guilt of its rebellion that it falls—never to rise again. (Isaiah 24:19-20)
(8) Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. (Acts 10:34-35)
Contradicted by:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)
Source: http://www.answering-christianity.co...ed_himself.htm
The Blood Atonement.
The Christian dogma of the Atonement is that Jesus paid the penalty for the original and other sins of men by his death on the cross of Calvary, and that salvation cannot be obtained without
belief in the saving power of his blood. This is what we read in the
First Epistle of St. Peter:
"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."
And this is what two modern Christian apologists (a Protestant and a Roman Catholic) have written:
"We pass on now to the doctrine of the Atonement, which is that Christ's death was in some sense a sacrifice for sin, and thus reconciled (or made 'at - one') God the Father and sinful man. And though not actually stated in the Creeds, it is implied in the words, was crucified also for us, and who suffered for our salvation"
"Since Christ, God and man, had taken upon Himself our sins (by His death on the cross) in order to atone for them by giving satisfaction to God's outraged justice, he is the mediator between God and man."
This dogma is not only a
denial of the Mercy of God but also of His Justice. To demand the price of blood in order to forgive the sins of men is to
show a complete lack of mercy, and to punish a man who is not guilty for the sins of others, whether the former is willing or not, is the
height of injustice.
Christian apologists try to defend this by saying that Jesus Christ willingly suffered death to pay the price for the sins of men. To this our reply is:
Firstly, it is not historically correct to say that Jesus had come to die willingly and deliberately for the sins of men. We read in the Bible that he did not wish to die on the cross. For, when he knew that his enemies were plotting against his life, he declared that his "soul was exceedingly sorrowful unto death", he asked his disciples to keep watch over him to protect him from his enemies and he prayed to God, "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from me; nevertheless not what 1 will, but what Thou wilt."[/COLOR
](Mark 14:36)
Secondly, we fail to see how the suffering and death of one man can wipe out the sins of others. It sounds something like the physician breaking his own head to cure the headache of his patients. The idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is illogical, meaningless and unjust.
Thirdly, the idea that shedding of blood is necessary to appease the Wrath of God has come into Christianity from the primitive man's image of God as an all-powerful demon. We see no connection at all between sin and blood. What is necessary to wash away sin is not blood but
repentance, remorse, persistent struggle against evil inclinations, development of greater sympathy for mankind and determination to carry out the Will of God as revealed to us through the prophets. The Qur'an says:
"To God does not reach the flesh or the blood I of animals they sacrifice), but unto Him is acceptable righteousness on your part"
(22:37)
The doctrine of the Atonement makes the First Person of Godhead into a
blood-thirsty tyrant in order to demonstrate the self-sacrificing love of the Second Person. To a dispassionate critic, the sacrifice of the Second Person appears as much misplaced and meaningless as the demand of the First Person is cruel and sadistic.
Arthur Weigall makes the following significant comment on the doctrine of the Atonement:
"We can no longer accept the appalling theological doctrine that for some mystic reason a propitiatory sacrifice was necessary. It outrages either our conception of God as Almighty or else our conception of Him as All-Loving. The famous Dr. Cruden believed that for the : purpose of this sacrifice
'Christ suffered dreadful pains inflicted by God', and this of course, is a standpoint which nauseates the modem mind and which may well be termed a hideous doctrine, not unconnected with the sadistic tendencies of primitive human nature. Actually, it is of
pagan origin, being, indeed, perhaps the most obvious relic of heathendom in the Faith."
The Christian scheme of salvation is not only
morally and rationally unsound, but also has
no support of the words of Jesus. Jesus may be said to have suffered for the sins of men in the sense that, in order to take them out of darkness into light, he incurred the wrath of the
evildoers and was tortured by them; but that does not mean that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven.
Jesus had come to rescue men from sin by his teaching and the example of his religiously devoted life to the commands of God, and not by deliberately dying for them on the cross and offering his blood as a propitiation for their sins. When a young man came and asked him "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"
he mentioned nothing about his atoning sacrifice and the redeeming power of Iris blood. His reply was the same as that of every other prophet.
For he said: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
(Matthew 19:17)
"Keep the commandments" that, according to Jesus, was the way to eternal life. Salvation could be gained by believing in God, eschewing evil and doing good, and not by accepting Jesus as the redeemer and believing in his blood atonement.
The dogma of the Atonement is unsound, for (1)
man is not born in sin. (2)
God does not require a price to forgive the sinners, and (3)
the idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is unjust and cruel. By sinning we do not harm God, but ourselves. The stain of sin on our souls can be removed, not by the suffering or death of any other person, whether the latter be willing or unwilling, but by our own repentance, turning away from evil and doing good. And so, when Adam, after the act of disobedience, repented and submitted himself completely to God,
his sin was forgiven. Neither is the sin of Adam inherited by the children of Adam, nor did it require the suffering and death of Jesus Christ to be forgiven.
The truth is that Jesus did not die on the cross at all. The doctrine of the Atonement is a denial of the Justice and Mercy of God.
Islam rejects this dogma. It declares that the forgiveness of sins cannot be obtained by the suffering and sacrifice of any other person, human or divine, but by the Grace of God and our own sincere and persistent efforts to fight against evil and do good:
(that no laden one shall bear another's load, and that man hath only that for which he maketh effort, and that his effort will be seen)
(The Glorious Qur'un 53:38,40)
(Whosoever goeth right, it is only for the good of his own soul that he goeth right, and whosoever erreth, erreth only to its hurt. No laden soul can bear another's load)
(17:15)
Source: http://www.geocities.com/askress2009/articles/84.htm