Abbreviated Bible - TAB - 1971, eliminates duplications, includes the Apocrypha
American Standard Version - ASV - 1901, a.k.a. Standard American Edition, Revised Version, the American version of the Holy Bible, Revised Version
American Translation (Beck) - AAT - 1976
American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) - SGAT - 1931
Amplified Bible - AB - 1965, includes explanation of words within text
Aramaic Bible (Targums) - ABT - 1987, originally translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic
Aramaic New Covenant - ANCJ - 1996, a translation and transliteration of the New Covenant
Authentic New Testament - ANT - 1958
Barclay New Testament - BNT - 1969
Basic Bible - TBB - 1950, based upon a vocabulary of 850 words
Bible Designed to Be Read as Literature - BDRL - 1930, stresses literary qualities of the Bible, includes the Apocrypha
Bible Reader - TBR - 1969, an interfaith version, includes the Apocrypha
Cassirer New Testament - CNT - 1989
Centenary Translation of the New Testament - CTNT - 1924, one of the few versions translated solely by a woman
Common English New Testament - CENT - 1865
Complete Jewish Bible - CJB - 1989, a Messianic Jewish translation
Concordant Literal New Testament - CLNT - 1926
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation - CCDT - 1953, includes the Apocrypha
Contemporary English Version - CEV - 1992, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Coptic Version of the New Testament - CVNT - 1898, based on translations from northern Egypt
Cotton Patch Version - CPV - 1968, based on American ideas and Southern US culture, only contains Paul's writings
Coverdale Bible - TCB - 1540, includes the Apocrypha
Darby Holy Bible - DHB - 1923
Dartmouth Bible - TDB - 1961, an abridgment of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
De Nyew Testament in Gullah - NTG - 2005
Dead Sea Scrolls Bible - DSSB - 1997, translated from Dead Sea Scrolls documents, includes the Apocrypha
Documents of the New Testament - DNT - 1934
Douay-Rheims Bible - DRB - 1899
Emphasized Bible - EBR - 1959, contains signs of emphasis for reading
Emphatic Diaglott - EDW - 1942
English Standard Version - ESV - 2001, a revision of the Revised Standard Version
English Version for the Deaf - EVD - 1989, a.k.a. Easy-to-Read Version, designed to meet the special needs of the deaf
English Version of the Polyglott Bible - EVPB - 1858, the English portion of an early Bible having translations into several languages
Geneva Bible - TGB - 1560, the popular version just prior to the translation of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
Godbey Translation of the New Testament - GTNT - 1905
God's Word - GW - 1995, a.k.a Today's Bible Translation
Holy Bible in Modern English - HBME - 1900
Holy Bible, Revised Version - HBRV - 1885, an official revision of the King James Version which was not accepted at the time
Holy Scriptures (Harkavy) - HSH - 1951
Holy Scriptures (Leeser) - HSL - 1905
Holy Scriptures (Menorah) - HSM - 1973, a.k.a. Jewish Family Bible
Inclusive Version - AIV - 1995, stresses equality of the sexes and physically handicapped, includes Psalms
Inspired Version - IV - 1867, a revision of the King James Version
Interlinear Bible (Green) - IB - 1976, side-by-side Hebrew/Greek and English
International Standard Version - ISV - 1998
Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - TJB - 1966, includes the Apocrypha
Jerusalem Bible (Koren) - JBK - 1962, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Jewish Bible for Family Reading - JBFR - 1957, includes the Apocrypha
John Wesley New Testament - JWNT - 1755, a correction of the King James Version
King James Version - KJV - 1611, a.k.a. Authorized Version, originally included the Apocrypha
Kleist-Lilly New Testament - KLNT - 1956
Knox Translation - KTC - 1956, includes the Apocrypha
Lamsa Bible - LBP - 1957, based on Pe****ta manuscripts
Lattimore New Testament - LNT - 1962, a literal translation
Letchworth Version in Modern English - LVME - 1948
Living Bible - LB - 1971, a paraphrase version
McCord's New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel - MCT - 1989
Message - TM - 1993, a.k.a. New Testament in Contemporary English, a translation in the street language of the day, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Modern Reader's Bible - MRB - 1923, stresses literary qualities, includes the Apocrypha
Modern Speech New Testament - MSNT - 1902, an attempt to present the Bible in effective, intelligible English
Moffatt New Translation - MNT - 1922
New American Bible - NAB - 1987, includes the Apocrypha
New American Standard Version - NAS - 1977
New Berkeley Version in Modern English - NBV - 1967
New Century Version - NCV - 1987
New English Bible - NEB - 1970, includes the Apocrypha
New Evangelical Translation - NET - 1992, a translation aimed at missionary activity
New International Version - NIV - 1978
New Jerusalem Bible - NJB - 1985, includes the Apocrypha
New JPS Version - NJPS - 1988
New King James Version - NKJ - 1990
New Life Version - NLV - 1969, a translation designed to be useful wherever English is used as a second language
New Living Translation - NLT - 1996, a dynamic-equivalence translation
New Millenium Bible - NMB - 1999, a contemporary English translation
New Revised Standard Version - NRS - 1989, the authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version
New Testament in Plain English - WPE - 1963, a version using common words only
New Testament: An Understandable Version - NTUV - 1995, a limited edition version
New Translation (Jewish) - NTJ - 1917
New World Translation - NWT - 1984
Noli New Testament - NNT - 1961, the first and only book of its kind by an Eastern Orthodox translator at the time of its publication
Norlie's Simplified New Testament - NSNT - 1961, includes Psalms
Original New Testament - ONT - 1985, described by publisher as a radical translation and reinterpretation
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha - OJBC - 1996, an Orthodox version containing Rabbinic Hebrew terms
People's New Covenant - PNC - 1925, a version translated from the meta-physical standpoint
Phillips Revised Student Edition - PRS - 1972
Recovery Version - RcV - 1991, a reference version containing extensive notes
Reese Chronological Bible - RCB - 1980, an arrangement of the King James Version in chronological order
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible - SNB - 1976, a version whose concern is the true name and titles of the creator and his son
Restored New Testament - PRNT - 1914, a version giving an interpretation according to ancient philosophy and psychology
Revised English Bible - REB - 1989, a revision of the New English Bible
Revised Standard Version - RSV - 1952, a revision of the American Standard Version
Riverside New Testament - RNT - 1923, written in the living English language of the time of the translation
Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition - SSBE - 1981, the sacred name and the sacred titles and the name of Yahshua restored to the text of the Bible
Scholars Version - SV - 1993, a.k.a. Five Gospels; contains evaluations of academics of what are, might be, and are not, the words of Jesus; contains the four gospels and the Gospel of Thomas
Scriptures (ISR) - SISR - 1998, traditional names replaced by Hebraic ones and words with pagan sources replaced
Septuagint - LXX - c. 200 BCE, the earliest version of the Old Testament scriptures, includes the Apocrypha
Shorter Bible - SBK - 1925, eliminates duplications
Spencer New Testament - SCM - 1941
Stone Edition of the Tanach - SET - 1996, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Swann New Testament - SNT - 1947, no chapters, only paragraphs, with verses numbered consecutively from Matthew to Revelation
Today's English New Testament - TENT - 1972
Today's English Version - TEV - 1976, a.k.a. Good News Bible
Twentieth Century New Testament - TCNT - 1904
Unvarnished New Testament - UNT - 1991, the principal sentence elements kept in the original order of the Greek
Versified Rendering of the Complete Gospel Story - VRGS - 1980, the gospel books written in poetic form, contains the four gospels
Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures - WVSS - 1929
Wiclif Translation - TWT - 1380, a very early version translated into English
William Tindale Newe Testament - WTNT - 1989, an early version with spelling and punctuation modernized
William Tyndale Translation - WTT - 1530, early English version, includes the Pentateuch
Williams New Testament - WNT - 1937, a translation of the thoughts of the writers with a reproduction of their diction and style
Word Made Fresh - WMF - 1988, a paraphrase with humour and familiar names and places for those who have no desire to read the Bible
Worrell New Testament - WAS - 1904
Wuest Expanded Translation - WET - 1961, intended as a comparison to, or commentary on, the standard translations
Young's Literal Translation, Revised Edition - YLR - 1898, a strictly literal translation
All the Books of the Old and New Testaments (Purver, 1764)
Analytical-Literal Translation, The (not yet published)
Aramaic Bible (Alexander, not yet published)
Bible, The (Barker, 1615)
Bible in Living English (Byington, 1972)
Bible Revised (Barham, 1850)
Bishop's Bible (1568)
Black Bible Chronicles (McCary, 1993)
Book of the New Covenant (Penn, 1836)
Christian Community Bible (Grogan, 1995)
Christian's Bible (Lefevre, 1928)
Clementine Edition (1790)
Commonly Received Version of the New Testament (Cone, 1850)
Complutensian Bible
Cotton Patch New Testament (Jordan, 1970)
Cranmer Version
David Macrae Translation (Macrae, 1799)
Dramatized Bible (Perry, 1989)
English Translation of the Bible (Mace, 1729)
Family Expositor (Dodderidge, 1755)
Good News of Our Lord Jesus, the Anointed (Whiting, 1849)
Great Bible (Grafton and Whitchurch)
Hebrew Name Bible
Holy Bible (Bellamy, 1818)
Holy Bible (Conquest, 1841)
Holy Bible (Forshall, 1850)
Holy Bible (Fry, 1812)
Holy Bible (Geddes, 1797)
Holy Bible (Madden, 1850)
Holy Bible (Sharpe, 1892)
Holy Bible (Julia Smith, 1876)
Holy Bible (Thomson)
Holy Bible (Wordsworth, 1885)
Holy Bible: An Improved Edition (American Bible Union, 1912)
Holy Bible Containing the Old and the New Testaments (Sawyer, 1862)
Holy Bible with Amendments (Webster, 1833)
Holy Scriptures (Leeser, 1855)
Holy Scriptures (Wellbeloved, 1859)
Interlinear Literal Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (George Richter Berry)
Jewish Bible (Kaplan)
Jewish School and Family Bible (Benisch, 1861)
Liberal Translation of the New Testament (Harwood)
Matthew's Bible
Mr. Whiston's Primitive New Testament (Whiston, 1745)
Modern Bible Version (Pratt / American Bible Society, 1893)
Modern King James Version of the Holy Bible (McGraw-Hill, 1962)
New and Corrected Version of the New Testament (****inson, 1833)
New Dispensation: The New Testament (Weekes, 1897)
New Family Bible (Boothroyd, 1833)
New International Reader's Version (1995)
New Literal Translation (MacKnight, 1795)
New Testament (Belsham, 1809)
New Testament (Bowes, 1870)
New Testament (Brotherhood Authentic Bible Society)
New Testament (Campbell, 1826)
New Testament (Clementson, 1938)
New Testament (Cunnington)
New Testament (Greber, 1937)
New Testament (Haweis, 1795)
New Testament (Highton, 1862)
New Testament (Hollybushe, 1538)
New Testament (Jefferson, 1820)
New Testament (Joye)
New Testament (Kneeland, 1822)
New Testament (Morgan, 1848)
New Testament (Murdock, 1851)
New Testament (Panin / Bible Numerics, 1914)
New Testament (Richter, 1877)
New Testament (Scarlett, 1798)
New Testament (Sharpe, 1856)
New Testament (Simon, 1730)
New Testament (Thorn, 1861)
New Testament (Wakefield, 1791)
New Testament (W. Williams, 1812)
New Testament (Wynne, 1764)
New Testament in an Improved Version (1808)
New Testament of Our Messiah and Saviour Yashua (Traina, 1950)
New Testament or New Covenant (Worsley, 1770)
New Translation (Archbishop Newcome)
New Version of All the Books of the New Testament (Batly and Chandler, 1726)
Newe Testament of Our Saviour Jesu Christe (Jugge, 1552)
Numberical Bible (Grant)
Old and New Testaments (J. Clarke and Co., 1899)
Old Covenant, The (Thompson, 1808)
Old Testament Scriptures (Spurrell, 1885)
Poetic Bible, The (Gray, 1973)
Pulpit Bible, The (Parker, 1937)
Revised Translation and Interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures (Ray, 1799)
Revised Translation of the Old Testament (Cookesley, 1859)
Rheims-Challoner Version
Semitic New Testament (Trimm)
Short Bible, A (Farrer, 1956)
Taverner's Bible (Taverner, 1759)
Thomas Cromwell Version (1539)
Translation of the New Testament (Scarlett, 1798)
Translator's New Testament (1975)
World English Bible
Some of these may be duplicated in the above list.
(AAT) The Complete Bible: An American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, 1939.
(ABT) The Afro Bible Translation
(ATB) The Alternate Translation Bible
(ASV) American Standard Version (purchase ASV)
(AB) The Amplified Bible (editions for sale)
(ALT) Analytical-Literal Translation
(ASL) American Sign Language Translation
(AV) Authorized Version (same as KJV)
(Bar) The New Testament: A New Translation, by William Barclay
(BLB) The Better Life Bible
(BWE) Bible in WorldWide English
The Bible Gateway Translation Information (see BWE description)
(CCB) Christian Community Bible
(CE) The Common Edition: New Testament
(CJB) Complete Jewish Bible
Comparison with NIV
(CV) Concordant Version
(CEV) Contemporary English Version
CEV online
Energion review
Interview: On the Shoulders of King James
Ken Anderson review
Michael Marlow review
Tyndale website overview
(Dar) Darby
(DR) Douay-Rheims
(DRP) David Robert Palmer's translations of the gospels
(EMTV) English Majority Text Version
(ENT) Extreme New Testament (revision of Simple English Bible, below)
Forward, by Tommy Tenney
(ERV) Easy-to-Read Version
(ESV) English Standard Version
(FF) Ferrar Fenton Bible
(GLW) God's Living Word
(GNC) God's New Covenant: A New Testament Translation, by Heinz W. Cassirer
(GNT) Good News Translation [formerly, (GNB) Good News Bible, and (TEV) Today's English Version]
(GW) God's Word
God's Word online
Review of God's Word, by Wayne Leman
(HCSB) Holman Christian Standard Bible (online, see Access Bibles section, below
article
(HNV) Hebrew Names Version
(ICB) International Children's Bible (children's version of the NCV)
(ISB) International Standard Bible (formerly titled The Simple English Bible)
(ISV) The International Standard Version
ISV Naturalness and Comprehension Survey, by Phil Fields
(JBP) New Testament in Modern English, by J.B. Phillips
New Testament in Modern English, Revised, by J.B. Phillips
Student edition
The J. B. Phillips Translation: A Guided Tour
(JNT) Jewish New Testament: A Translation of the New Testament That Expresses Its Jewishness (see Complete Jewish Bible)
(JPS) Jerusalem Publication Society: Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text
(KJV) King James Version and recent revisions
KJV
Translators to the Reader
(DKJB) Defined King James Bible
DKJB reviewed by Joseph Ng
DKJB reviewed by David W. Cloud
(KJII) King James Version II (renamed to Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)
(KJ21) King James for the 21st Century
KJV21 review
(KJ2000) King James 2000
(LITV) The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (formerly named King James II)
LITV download site
The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible Frequently Asked Questions
(MKJV) Modern King James Version
alternate site
MKJV download site
(NKJV) New King James Version
(RAV) Revised Authorised Version (British edition of the NKJV), review
(RKJV) Revised King James New Testament
(TMB) The Third Millennium Bible
(UKJV) Updated King James Version
(LITV) The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (see under KJV and recent revisions)
(LB) Living Bible
(MAEV) Modern American English Vernacular
discussion list for MAEV
(MLB) Modern Language Bible: New Berkeley Version
(Mof) Bible: James Moffatt Translation (amazon.com)
(NAB) New American Bible
"The New American Bible": A Voice From the Past
(NAB) New American Bible (access entire Bible)
(NASB) New American Standard Bible
What is the philosophy of translation set forth by The Lockman Foundation?
New Berkeley Version (see Modern Language Bible)
(NCV) New Century Version
(NEB) New English Bible
(NET) New English Translation
NET Bible online
Try the NET Bible! (a critique)
An Open Letter Regarding The NET Bible, New Testament (a reply to the critique)
(NET) New Evangelical Translation
(NIrV) New Internation Reader's Version
(NIV) New International Version
The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation
(NJB) New Jerusalem Bible
(NKJV) New King James Version (see under KJV and recent revisions)
(NLV) New Life Version
(NLT) New Living Translation
The Living Bible Reborn
Re: New Living Translation (a review)
(NRSV) New Revised Standard Bible
NRSV critiqued by John H. Dobson
(NWT) New World Translation (published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of the Jehovah's Witnesses)
(OBP) The Original Bible Project
(OSB) Orthodox Study Bible
(ONT) The Original New Testament: The First Definitive Translation of the New Testament in 2000 Years, by Hugh Schonfield
(PMB) Postmodern Bible - Amos
(Rec) Recovery Version
(REB) The Revised English Bible (revision of NEB)
(RSV) Revised Standard Version
(RV) Revised Version, 1885
(RYLT) Revised Young's Literal Translation
(Sch) The Schocken Bible
(SEB) The Simple English Bible
(SENT) Spoken English New Testament
(TM) The Message
A Summary Critique: The Message, by John R. Kohlenberger III
(TMB) The Third Millennium Bible
(TEV) Today's English Version [see (GNT) Good News Translation]
Book Review: Today's English Version (TEV)
(TNIV) Today's New International Version
TNIV website
TNIV Debate Between Dr. Wayne Grudem and Dr. Mark Strauss
TNIV links
(Tyn) Tyndale
(Wey) Weymouth
Preface to the First Edition
(WEB) World English Bible
(Wms) The New Testament in the Language of the People, by Charles B. Williams (another website)
(WNT) Wesley's New Testament
(Wuest) The New Testament (An Expanded Translation) purchase
Yes Word (update of Tyndale translation)
(YLT) Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (download entire text)
view Young's Literal Translation of the Bible
Preface to the First Edition.
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.Revelation 18:19
WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by:khairullah
12/18/2009
12/12/2009
Christianity is Paganism
As much as some Christians would like to claim, that Christianity is a pure monotheistic faith, the fact of the matter is that when one studies what Christianity is, and what it teaches, one will see that Christianity is in fact a form of paganism. One only has to study several of the former major pagan religions from ancient
Now when one studies the pagan religions of ancient
007.059
YUSUFALI: We sent Noah to his people. He said: "O my people! worship Allah! ye have no other god but Him. I fear for you the punishment of a dreadful day!
007.065
YUSUFALI: To the 'Ad people, (We sent) Hud, one of their (own) brethren: He said: O my people! worship Allah! ye have no other god but Him will ye not fear (Allah)?"
007.073
YUSUFALI: To the Thamud people (We sent) Salih, one of their own brethren: He said: "O my people! worship Allah: ye have no other god but Him. Now hath come unto you a clear (Sign) from your Lord! This she-camel of Allah is a Sign unto you: So leave her to graze in Allah's earth, and let her come to no harm, or ye shall be seized with a grievous punishment.
007.085
YUSUFALI: To the Madyan people We sent Shu'aib, one of their own brethren: he said: "O my people! worship Allah; Ye have no other god but Him. Now hath come unto you a clear (Sign) from your Lord! Give just measure and weight, nor withhold from the people the things that are their due; and do no mischief on the earth after it has been set in order: that will be best for you, if ye have Faith.
So prophets were sent throughout history to pagan societies to teach them about monotheism.
Ancient Egyptians had several God's, they included:
Horus
Sobek
The ancient pagan Greeks had several God's as well, they included:
Apollo
Ares
Hebe
Zeus
The Romans had several God's as well which included:
Flora
Hora
Cupid
Juno
So each pagan religion has a whole set of different gods, and each god has a specific role. Now when one looks at Christianity one will find the identical belief, which is that of the Trinity, where you have 3 gods:
The Father
The Son Jesus
The Holy Spirit
Notice the similarity with this and the other pagan religions which I was just quoting? Now off course Trinitarians will deny the Trinity it is three God's, but everyone knows trinity is in fact the worship of three gods no matter how you try to look at it, in fact several Christians even refuse the trinity and they themselves admit trinity is the worship of three gods! So you even have Christians who say the trinity is 3 gods!
And let us easily prove the trinity is three gods, the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is also God, each of these deities is different than the other, the Father is not Jesus, and Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father and Jesus, and each one of these deities is God hence you have three gods! Easy!
Now it doesn't matter if Trinitarians view trinity as monotheism and not polytheism, we must look at trinity in a proper context, and when we do we see that it is 100% similar to the pagan religions of the past. Pagan religions had several gods and each god had a different specific role, the trinity has three persons, and each is divine, and each has a specific role, notice the similarity? So simply based on these very identical similarities one can easily say the concept of the trinity was borrowed and derived from the older and present pagan religions in the time of Paul and his followers.
I mean the fact that millions of Christians don't believe in the trinity and believe its polytheistic is the best testimony we could have to prove our information is correct!
Now another thing that is prevalent in pagan religions is that many of their gods were in fact human beings, basically the idea of a man-god. Many of the pagan beliefs also believed that certain of these humans who also happened to be god came down from the heavens. Examples include:
Pharos of
Julius Caesar
Dido
We find this exact thing in Christianity with Jesus! The man-God, God coming in the form of a man, in the flesh, all of this is identical to pagan beliefs which came before Christianity!
So again we can confidently state that the Christian concept of Jesus being God in the flesh is a borrowed form of paganism.
There is more connections between the Christian beliefs and paganism, but that I shall keep for another article. So to summarize what we have:
1-Pagans believed in several gods each having different functions
2-Christians believe in 3 deities who each perform different function, and each deity is god leaving us with three Gods
3-Even millions of Christians reject the trinity and affirm it is paganism and polytheism
4-Several pagan gods were in fact humans, who were elevated to the status of divine
5-Christians believe in a human god as well
A lot of coincidences? You decide but I think you know the truth.
And Allah Knows Best!
By Sami Zaatari
What is a "Trinity"?
What is a "Trinity"?
Taken from the book, "What did Jesus Really Say?"
In the above historical analysis, we learned that in 325C.E., the Trinitarian church set forth the doctrine of homoousious meaning: of CO-EQUALITY, CO-ETERNITY, AND CONSUBSTANTIALITY of the second person of the trinity with the Father.
Taken from the book, "What did Jesus Really Say?"
In the above historical analysis, we learned that in 325C.E., the Trinitarian church set forth the doctrine of homoousious meaning: of CO-EQUALITY, CO-ETERNITY, AND CONSUBSTANTIALITY of the second person of the trinity with the Father.
The doctrine became known as the Creed of Nicea. But they also went on to develop the doctrine of "blind faith." This is because those who developed the "Trinity" doctrine were unable to define it in any manner that could not be refuted by the unwavering Unitarians Christians through the Bible. In the beginning they tried to defend the "Trinity" through logic and the Bible. This continued for a long time until the Trinitarian church finally gave up on ever substantiating their claims through the Bible. So they demanded blind faith in their doctrines. Anyone who did not believe blindly and dared to question them would be branded a heretic and tortured or killed. The following is only a small sampling of the verses of the Bible which refute this definition:
Co-equality:
Jesus and God can not be co-equal because the Bible says:
"... my Father is greater than I" John 14:28
Obviously if God is greater than Jesus (pbuh) then they can not be equal. We also read:
"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
If Jesus and God were equal then it follows that they will be equal in knowledge. But as we can see, God is greater in knowledge than Jesus (pbuh).
Co-eternity:
God is claimed to have "begotten" Jesus (pbuh). Jesus (pbuh) is claimed to be the "Son" of God. "Beget" is a verb which implies an action. No matter how you define what God actually did in order to "beget" Jesus (pbuh), any definition must require that God Almighty performed some action and then Jesus (pbuh) came into being. Before God performed this action Jesus was not. After God performed this action Jesus came into being. Thus, not only is Jesus (pbuh) not eternal, since there was a time (before the "begetting") when he did not exist, but he can also never be co-eternal with God since God was in existence at a time when Jesus was not. This is very simple grade-school logic.
Consubstantiality:
First go back and read the comments on co-equality and co-eternity. Next, remember when Jesus is claimed to have died? (Mark 15:37, John 19:30). If God and Jesus are one substance then God died also. But then who was governing all of creation? Remember:
"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."Luke 23:46
If Jesus and God were "one substance" then Jesus (pbuh) would not need to send his spirit to God because it is already God's own spirit, who is also Jesus. Remember:
"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt" Matthew 26:39
And "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30
If Jesus and God were one substance then this ONE substance must only have ONE will.
Futher, remember:
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"Matthew 27:46
If Jesus and God are one substance then how can ONE substance forsake itself? Why would ONE substance need to pray to itself?
Tom Harpur says: "The idea of the Second Person of a Holy Trinity knowing what it is to be God-forsaken has only to be stated to be recognized as absurd" For Christ's Sake, pp. 45.
Even explaining the supposed "Trinity" away as a "mystery" does not hold water. In 1 Corinthians 14:33 we read "For God is not [the author] of confusion." Thus, confusion can never be His very nature.
THIS is why blind faith was demanded, and THIS is why twelve million Christians were put to death by the church as heretics in the notorious Church "Inquisitions" (Apology for Muhammad and the Qur'an, John Davenport).
Contradictions in Trinity
Contradictions The basic problem is that trinitarianism is a nonbiblical doctrine that contradicts a number of biblical teachings and many specific verses of Scripture. Moreover, the doctrine contains a number of internal contradictions. Of course, the most obvious internal contradiction is how there can be three persons of God in any meaningful sense and yet there be only one God. Below we have compiled a number of other contradictions and problems associated with trinitarianism. This list is not exhaustive but it does give an idea of how much the doctrine deviates from the Bible.
1. Did Jesus Christ have two fathers? The Father is the Father of the Son (I John 1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). Which one is the true father? Some trinitarians say that the Holy Ghost was merely the Father's agent in conception - a process they compare to artificial insemination!
2. How many Spirits are there? God the Father is a Spirit (John 4:24), the Lord Jesus is a Spirit (II Corinthians 3:17), and the Holy Spirit is a Spirit by definition. Yet there is one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4).
3. If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? (Matthew 11:25). Can God pray to God?
4. Similarly, how can the Son not know as much as the Father? (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32).
5. Similarly, how can the Son not have any power except what the Father gives Him? (John 5:19, 30; 6:38).
6. Similarly, what about other verses of Scripture indicating the inequality of the Son and the Father? (John 8:42; 14:28; I Corinthians 11:3).
7. Did "God the Son" die? The Bible says the Son died (Romans 5:10). If so, can God die? Can part of God die?
8. How can there be an eternal Son when the Bible speaks of the begotten Son, clearly indicating that the Son had a beginning? (John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5-6).
9. If the Son is eternal and existed at creation, who was His mother at that time? We know the Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4).
10. Did "God the Son" surrender His omnipresence while on earth? If so, how could he still be God?
12. If in answer to questions 3 through 11 we say only the human Son of God was limited in knowledge, was limited in power, and died, then how can we speak of "God the Son"? Are there two Sons?
13. Whom do we worship and to whom do we pray? Jesus said to worship the Father (John 4:21-24), yet Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:59-60).
14. Can there be more than three persons in the Godhead? Certainly the Old Testament does not teach three but emphasizes oneness. If the New Testament adds to the Old Testament message and teaches three persons, then what is to prevent subsequent revelations of additional persons? If we apply trinitarian logic to interpret some verses of Scripture, we could teach a fourth person (Isaiah 48:16; Colossians 1:3; 2:2; I Thessalonians 3:11; James 1:27). Likewise, we could interpret some verses of Scripture to mean six more persons (Revelation 3:1; 5:6).
15. Are there three Spirits in a Christian's heart? Father, Jesus, and the Spirit all dwell within a Christian (John 14:17, 23; Romans 8:9; Ephesians 3:14-17). Yet there is one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4).
16. There is only one throne in heaven (Revelation 4:2). Who sits upon it? We know Jesus does (Revelation 1:8,18, 4:8). Where do the Father and the Holy Spirit sit?
17. If Jesus is on the throne, how can He sit on the right hand of God? (Mark 16:19). Does He sit or stand on the right hand of God? (Acts 7:55). Or is He in the Father's bosom? (John 1:18).
18. Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus? Colossians 2:9 says the latter.
19. Given Matthew 28:19, why did the apostles consistently baptize both Jews and Gentiles using the name of Jesus, even to the extent of rebaptism? (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; I Corinthians 1:13).
20. Who raised Jesus from the dead? Did the Father (Ephesians 1:20), or Jesus (John 2:19-21), or the Spirit? (Romans 8:11).
21. If Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal persons in the Godhead, why is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost unforgivable but blasphemy of the Son is not? (Luke 12:10).
22. If the Holy Ghost is a co-equal member of the trinity, why does the Bible always speak of Him being sent from the Father or from Jesus? (John 14:26; 15:26).
23. Does the Father know something that the Holy Spirit does not know? If so, how can they be co-equal? Only the Father knows the day and hour of the Second Coming of Christ (Mark 13:32).
24. Did the trinity make the Old and New covenants? We know the LORD (Jehovah) did (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:7-13). If Jehovah is a trinity then Father, Son, and Spirit all had to die to make the new covenant effective (Hebrews 9:16-17).
25. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is the Spirit also a son of the Father? If not, why not?
26. If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, is the Spirit the grandson of the Father? If not, why not?
Who are Melchizedek's parents ?
I have asked: Who are Melchizedek's parents. There seems to be a lack of ability to grasp the concept that Allah can create with a word. Allah does not need humans to create another human, if another human is used, it is used as a sign, in no way to characterize Allah as a actual Father, the Proper term is Creator, fore Allah is the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth and everything in-between.
To demonstrate this, we ask; who then are the Parents of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20), a high priest who had no Mother or Father.
"having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God;" Hebrews 7:3-4
Some Christians suggest that Melchizedek is Jesus before Jesus was born is not valid for many reasons, two reasons are that Melchizedek had no beginning or end, while Jesus had an end, a second of many is that Melchizedek is "made like unto the son of God" while the Bible labels Jesus "son of God" clearly two different individuals.
Who then are the Parents of Melchizedek? or is there solid statements in the Bible that say that Melchizedek is Jesus ?
Or is Melchizedek further Proof that Allah can Create by simply saying "Be". That Allah has no children, we are all simply the Creation of Allah to be judged for our actions and belief in Allah.
Crucifixion of Jesus or The Holy Rape of Jessica?
The Christian faith is founded upon these well-known and established bases:
Inheritance of Adam's sin by all mankind.
Crucifixion and the blood-shedding of Jesus because of Adam's sin as an Atonement for humanity.
After examination and investigation of the Christians' Scripture, the reader will notice that it conveys something different from these two bases and reveal a serious secret and a hidden fact. With a little pondering, we will notice that the basis of Christian faith is the statement:
"Adam had committed a sin."
If this statement is established, we will find the next statement:
"Sons of Adam inherited the original sin from their father."
If this second statement is true, we can formulate several statements until we reach the final statement, upon which the Christian creed is founded:
"Jesus was crucified as an Atonement for humans' sin."
It is agreed upon among intelligent people that results follow the reasons that caused them in correctness and error; if the reasons are valid, the results are therefore correct — if the reasons are not, then the results are therefore erroneous. This rule has nothing to do with Islam, Christianity or anything else because it is purely an intellectual rule that is generally agreed upon by all.
If we want to implement this rule on the Christian creed, we should first ask about the correctness of the first statement upon whom the Christianity is based, namely that "Adam has committed a sin." In order to be fair with Christians and in order for our research to gain their acceptance, we will depend in judging this statement on the Bible they use in deriving their beliefs.
Let us begin by posing the following question:
Who committed the original sin, was it Adam or Eve?
The Christians believe the answer to be Adam. However, if we confer the Bible, we will find that this is an erroneous statement and that Adam is innocent. Here are the evidences:
The First Proof:
Genesis, 3:1-6 - "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."
From this text, we learn that Eve was the one who committed the sin and with her Adam and all humanity fell. She committed the sin and was the reason for sinfulness of the entire human race including Adam. Adam is innocent from what they attribute to him for he did not disobey the Command of God.
The Second Proof:
The lesson we learnt from the above text is further fortified by the New Testament in the hands of Christians today:
1 Timothy 2:14 - "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
The Third Proof:
The sacrificed Saviour should be a woman, not a man. So God should incarnate in the form of a woman, not a man, and her name would be Jessica, not Jesus. Since Christians believe that the Atonement must be with the most precious thing the Saviour has, therefore the Lord incarnated in a Woman must therefore sacrifice the most precious thing that a virgin woman possess — her honour….
The sin of Adam was never mentioned by the Messiah in any of the Gospels, this therefore confirms our argument that the Messiah has nothing to do with Adam's sin.
All these proofs expose some important facts, which are as follows:
Firstly, evidence reveals that Adam is innocent from guilt and sin for he did not disobey and that he is not responsible for the original sin; Eve is.
Secondly, Christians believe that the original sin which the human race has inherited from the first sinner requires an Atonement.
Therefore, if we conclude from the above arguments that Eve is the originator of the first sin and that Adam is merely a victim of Eve's temptation and not the first sinner, then it is more logical for the Atonement to be in accordance with the following scenario:
The sacrificed Saviour should be a woman, not a man. So God should incarnate in the form of a woman, not a man, and her name would be Jessica, not Jesus, in order for her to make an Atonement for the sin of Eve who was the first to be deceived as proven by the Bible itself.
Since Christians believe that the Atonement must be with the most precious thing the Saviour has, therefore the Lord incarnated in a Woman must therefore sacrifice the most precious thing that a virgin woman possess — her honour. It is well-known that the honour of a pious woman is more precious to her than even her own life. So, the more logical scenario — according to Christian standards –would be for God to allow a group of Jews to forcefully deflower her as an Atonement for Eve's original sin and to hence remove the inherited temptation.
Therefore the forceful blood-shedding of the hymen of a sinless, honourable and pious Lady Jessica would represent the cruel blood-shedding of a crucifixion sacrifice used as an atonement for sin. And the Jewish gang-rape of the Goddess-incarnate, Lady Jessica - instead of the crucifixion of an innocent Jesus - would be the more logical consequence as offered by the Bible itself because of Eve's "original sin" who was the first human being to disobey God. The shame that would be ascribed to her and her followers, not to mention the abuse, suffering and mental agony that she would later undergo because of her forceful deflowering at the hands of a group of Jewish men, would be the most supreme sacrifice for the Atonement of the human race from Eve's sin that could never be removed except with the blood of Lady Jessica's hymen.
Conclusions
The ultimate result of this objective research is that the holy rape of the Goddess-Incarnate Lady Jessica, instead of the violent crucifixion of Jesus, peace be upon him, would be the symbol which Christians should adopt and present before humanity. We do not believe any sane person would believe in this ugly creed based upon the principles held by the Christians themselves.
And the last of our prayers is: Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds.
Jesus' Miracles were not unique in the Bible
Let us look at the following verses from the Bible that refute the uniqueness of Jesus' Miracles:
Bringing the dead back to life:
"Then he cried out to the LORD , "O LORD my God, have you brought tragedy also upon this widow I am staying with, by causing her son to die?" Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried to the LORD , "O LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!" The LORD heard Elijah's cry, and the boy's life returned to him, and he lived. Elijah picked up the child and carried him down from the room into the house. He gave him to his mother and said, "Look, your son is alive!" (From the NIV Bible, 1 Kings 17:20-23)"
"But the child's mother said, "As surely as the LORD lives and as you live, I will not leave you." So he got up and followed her. Gehazi went on ahead and laid the staff on the boy's face, but there was no sound or response. So Gehazi went back to meet Elisha and told him, "The boy has not awakened." When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the LORD. Then he got on the bed and lay upon the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out upon him, the boy's body grew warm. Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out upon him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes. Elisha summoned Gehazi and said, "Call the Shunammite." And he did. When she came, he said, "Take your son." (From the NIV Bible, 2 Kings 4:30-36)"
Jesus' dead body never caused for any dead to come back to life, but Elisha's did:
"Elisha died and was buried. Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man's body into Elisha's tomb. When the body touched Elisha's bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet. Hazael king of Aram oppressed Israel throughout the reign of Jehoahaz. (From the NIV Bible, 2 Kings 13:20-22)"
Jesus only restored life, but never actually created one from scratch. Moses, however, did create a live snake from a wooden stick:
"Then the LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?" "A staff," he replied. The LORD said, "Throw it on the ground." Moses threw it on the ground and it became a snake, and he ran from it. Then the LORD said to him, "Reach out your hand and take it by the tail." So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake and it turned back into a staff in his hand. (From the NIV Bible, Exodus 4:2-4)"
Curing the blind:
"When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. "Oh, my lord, what shall we do?" the servant asked. "Don't be afraid," the prophet answered. "Those who are with us are more than those who are with them." And Elisha prayed, "O LORD , open his eyes so he may see." Then the LORD opened the servant's eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. As the enemy came down toward him, Elisha prayed to the LORD , "Strike these people with blindness." So he struck them with blindness, as Elisha had asked. Elisha told them, "This is not the road and this is not the city. Follow me, and I will lead you to the man you are looking for." And he led them to Samaria. After they entered the city, Elisha said, "LORD , open the eyes of these men so they can see." Then the LORD opened their eyes and they looked, and there they were, inside Samaria. When the king of Israel saw them, he asked Elisha, "Shall I kill them, my father? Shall I kill them?" "Do not kill them," he answered. "Would you kill men you have captured with your own sword or bow? Set food and water before them so that they may eat and drink and then go back to their master." So he prepared a great feast for them, and after they had finished eating and drinking, he sent them away, and they returned to their master. So the bands from Aram stopped raiding Israel's territory. Some time later, Ben-Hadad king of Aram mobilized his entire army and marched up and laid siege to Samaria. (From the NIV Bible, 2 Kings 6:15-24)"
"Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, "Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed." But Naaman went away angry and said, "I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy. Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than any of the waters of Israel? Couldn't I wash in them and be cleansed?" So he turned and went off in a rage. Naaman's servants went to him and said, "My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, 'Wash and be cleansed'!" So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy. (From the NIV Bible, 2 Kings 5:10-14)"
Feeding hundreds with few loafs of bread:
"A man came from Baal Shalishah, bringing the man of God twenty loaves of barley bread baked from the first ripe grain, along with some heads of new grain. "Give it to the people to eat," Elisha said. "How can I set this before a hundred men?" his servant asked. But Elisha answered, "Give it to the people to eat. For this is what the LORD says: 'They will eat and have some left over.' " Then he set it before them, and they ate and had some left over, according to the word of the LORD. (From the NIV Bible, 2 Kings 4:42-44)"
So as we clearly see from the above verses, Jesus' Miracles were not unique. Therefore, they can never be used to prove that he is the Creator of the Universe.
Is Jesus Responsible for Our sins?
Humans are born without (original sin of man) according to the Bible:
(Deuteronomy 24:16): "The father shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
(Jeremiah 31:30), "But every one shall die for own iniquity..."
(Ezekiel 18:20) "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
So Adam and Eve were responsible for their own sins.
Even in the New Testament:
(Matthew 19:14): "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
(I Corinthians 3:8)"Now he that planteth and he that waterth are one; and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour"
(Matthew 7:1,2)"Judge not, that ye be not Judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again"
The Truth about Jesus
The Truth about Jesus
Dr. Maneh al-Johani
Points to be considered (Islam vs Christianity) From The Truth about Jesus
Dr. Maneh al-Johani
Points to be considered (Islam vs Christianity) From The Truth about Jesus
After reading this presentation (untyped section before this one) a believing Christian might say 'This is what the Muslims, whom we always considered as heathens or infidels, say about Jesus'. But the point of view which the Qur'aan presents deserves serious consideration, to say the least, by those who are really concerned about God, faith and even Christianity itself for the following reasons:
1. The Qur'aan is the last version of God's revelation and what it says is the ultimate truth. This might not mean much for those who do not believe in the Qur'aan as such. However, the history of the Qur'aan, modern textual criticism and scientific research of the content of this scripture leave no doubt about the truth it contains. The frequently made statements that the Qur'aan is the word of Muhammad who copied his information from Jewish and Christian sources is made by people who do not know the history of the world, the Qur'aan or Muhammad. The first Arabic translation of the Bible appeared two centuries AFTER Muhammad's mission. If we add to this Muhammad's illiteracy and the scarcity of religious books in any language outside churches and temples in the sixth century we can understand the absurdity of these allegations.
2. The oneness and universality of God's message requires that people accept all the messengers of God. Rejecting one of them amounts to rejecting them all. The Jews reject Jesus' mission and Muhammad's mission; the Christian reject Muhammad's mission; whereas the Muslims accept them all, but reject incorrect historical interpretations and human elements in these missions.
3. Because of the Qur'aan, Muslims love and respect Jesus as they love and respect the Prophet Muhammad. Moreover, the Qur'aan reports some of Jesus' miracles which are not reported in the present gospel. For example, the Qur'aan tells us that Jesus spoke in the cradle and was able to tell people what they ate or treasured in their houses, to mention a few.
4. It is common knowledge that the divinity of Jesus was introduced by Saint Paul and his followers and was established on the dead bodies of millions of Christians through history which evoked the Castillo's well known remark, 'To burn a man is not to prove a doctrine'.
5. The choice of the present four gospels was imposed in the conference of Nicea 325 CE under the auspices of the pagan Emperor Constantine for political purposes. Literally hundreds of gospels and religious writings were considered apocrypha i.e. books of doubtful authenticity. Some of those books were written by Jesus' disciples. If they were not more authentic than the four gospels they were of equal authenticity. Some of them still are available such as the GOSPEL OF BARNABAS and the SHEPHERD OF HERMAS which agree with the Qur'aan.
6. The Unitarian concept and the humanness of Jesus is not only held by Muslims but also by Jews and by some early groups of Christianity such as the EBIONITES, the CERINTHIANS, the BASILIDIANS, the CAPOCRATIANS and the HYPISISTARIANS to name several early sects. The Arians, Paulicians and Goths also accepted Jesus as a Prophet of God. Even in the modern age there are churches in Asia, in Africa, the Unitarian church, and Jehovah Witnesses who do not worship Jesus as God.
7. Most serious studies of the Bible have shown that it contains a large portion of additions which neither Jesus nor the writers of the gospels said. The church, as Heinz Zahrnt said, 'PUT WORDS INTO THE MOUTH OF JESUS WHICH HE NEVER SPOKE AND ATTRIBUTED ACTIONS TO HIM WHICH HE NEVER PERFORMED'. Those conclusions were arrived at by some members of the church. However, they are kept secret or available only to the specialists. One of those who has shown that most of what the church says about Jesus is Rudolf Augestein in his book JESUS SON OF MAN (published in Germany in 1972 and translated into English in 1977).
9. The concept of the Trinity is not, of course, available even in the present Bible. There are statements which negate it such as 'The Lord our God is one Lord (Matthew 12:29) and many others
10. It is worth noting that Jesus never claims divinity even in the present text of the Bible. The expression 'SON OF GOD' cannot be said to have come from Jesus himself. Hasting in the DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE says, 'WHETHER Jesus USED IT OF HIMSELF IS DOUBTFUL'. In my reading of the Bible, I found only two instances in John Chapter5 and 11 where Jesus uses 'son of God' to refer to himself. Other instances were used by others. Even those are very limited. However, even if the title 'son of God' was used by Jesus himself one should remember the following points:
(A) As a biblical scholar said, 'Semitic language would never have been allowed literal sense even though such an expression would be interpreted literally in the Hellenistic word of Jesus followers'
(B) The New Testament Greek words used for 'SON' are PIAS and PAIDA, which means 'servant' or 'son in the sense of servant', are translated as 'son' in reference to Jesus and 'servant' in reference to others in some translations of the Bible (Mufassir, p15)
© The title 'son of man' which is a self designation of Jesus and occurs 81 times in the gospels is the clearest description and emphasis by Jesus on his humanity. The classical interpretation given to this title is that it is used to emphasize the human side of Jesus. Now the question which suggests itself is: Do contemporary Christians emphasize this aspect of Jesus?
THE POPE CONTRADICTS THE BIBLE
The traditional Biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion is that he was arrested and crucified by the orders and plans of the chief priest and Jewish elders. This account was denied in the 1960's by the highest Catholic Christian authority, the Pope. He issued a statement in which he said the Jews had nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion. This definitely does contradict the Biblical account. You might say: This is a political decree. This agrees with what Muslims are saying: the church had introduced many elements into Christianity and was influences by many factors which made its view of Christianity not only changeable but, by and large, contradict the early forms of Christianity.
This implicit assumption is one of the causes of hesitation and unwillingness of many people to accept the Qur'aanic view of Jesus. This is in spite of the fact that this point of view is supported by:
(A) The early history of Christianity which continued for three decades after Jesus's disappearance as a sect within Judaism.
(B) The practise of many Christian sects and scholars throughout the history of Christianity
© The findings of many Biblical scholars and scientific research which was applied to the Bible
(D) The instinct of many people (some of whom think they are Christians) who believe in the One God, but can't accept Jesus as God or the Son of God.
It is worth nothing that the main differences between the Qur'aanic account and what modern research and scholars have found is that the Qur'aan said what it says now about Jesus and his mission fourteen centuries ago and never changed its stand.
REASONS HOLDING PEOPLE FROM ISLAM
Some of the reasons which might account for the rejection of the Qur'aan is account include:
(A) The time honoured bias against Islam which was partly the product of the Crusades and partly of the Arab Israeli conflict in the Middle East
(B) Confusion. Man people although they do not accept Christianity, do not know where the truth is
© Social pressure and Academic reputation. Many people were afraid to accept Islam because they felt they would be mocked, alienated from their relatives and peers if they openly criticised Christianity and accepted Islam. At the academic level, especially among orientalists, if one writes favourably about Islam and the Qur'aan nobody will review his work, quote from it or even consider it a scholarly work. He would have been destroyed professionally. The Washington Post (January 5th 1978) reported that university of Richmond Professor, Dr Robert Alley lost the chairmanship of the Department of Religion there because he holds the view that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. After considerable research into newly found ancient documents, Dr Alley concluded:
"The (Bible) passages where Jesus talks about the son of God are later additions...what the church said about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have been consistent with his entire lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the first three decades after Jesus' death Christianity continued as a sect within Judaism. The first three decades of its existence of the church were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they (the followers) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus"
THE BIBLE THROUGH TIME
The Text of the Old Testament
There are a number of places where the original text is uncertain and the editor or translator simply has to be guided by what is most likely. (my emphasis)
In principle, however, the Hebrew text carries most weight than the Greek, since the Greek editors took a good many liberties in translation. (my emphasis)
The Formation of the Old Testament
The history of how the 'canon' (collection of acknowledged books) of the Old Testament came to be formed is also difficult to establish because of lack of information. But there is enough to show what the Old Testament contained during the period immediately before the Christian era. And this goes a long way towards establishing what Jesus and the apostles would have regarded as Scriptures. (my emphasis)
The Text of the New Testament
When we turn to the New Testament text we are confronted with such a mass of evidence that the problem is to find some basic principle of editing. We possess thousands of manuscripts: a striking contrast to the very few extant manuscripts of classical Greek authors. Not only are there thousands of Greek manuscripts; there are also a great many manuscripts of translations into Latin, Syriac, Egyptian and other languages. We also have New Testament quotations in the writings of the early church fathers. But this evidence must be used with caution, since they are not all noted for their accuracy.* (my emphasis)
The Writing of the Bible
The authorship of the Old Testament books is traditionally attributed to great leaders of the Jewish past, among them Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon and various Prophets. However, modern scholarship has concluded that many of the books are late compilations of early traditions and writing. (my emphasis)
The books of the New Testament were written during the century after Jesus' death. They were probably written in Greek, although it is possible that one or two books were first written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. They are traditionally considered to have been written by the apostles and disciples of Jesus. Certain scholars, however, have questioned the apostolic authorship of several. (my emphasis)
All original manuscripts of the Old Testament are at present lost. We possess only late copies in Hebrew or in various ancient versions. The Hebrew texts are the product of generations of scribes and are sometimes quite altered and corrupted. (my emphasis)
The twenty-seven (27) books of the New Testament are a selection from a much larger body of early Christian writings. They represent the attempt of the Christian Church to settle on the writings that most fully present the Christian message: the fulfillment and renewal of God's promises in the person of Jesus Christ. (my emphasis)
The Council of Trent (1545-1563). This council of the Roman Catholic Church defined the biblical canon, affirming the inclusion of the biblical books that the Prostestants call the Apocrypha and asserted the equal importance of the Bible and tradition. (my emphasis)**
* Eerdman's Handbook to the Bible. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1977.
** Collier's Encyclopedia. Volume 4, MacMillan Educational Corporation, New York. P.F. Collier, Inc. London & New York, 1976.
Translations:
Aramic (original spoken language of Jesus)
Hebrew/ Greek (written)
Latin-Vulgate (Translated by Jerome, 400 A.D.)
Versions:
1384 Wycliff
1526 Tyndale
1535 Coverdale
1537 Matthew
1539 Great Bible
1568 Geneva Bible
1568 Bishop's Bible
1582 Rheims, New Testament
1609 Douai, Old Testament
1611 Authorized / King James Version
1903 R.T. Weymouth, The New Testament in Modern Speech
1913 James Moffatt, A New Translation of the Bible
1917 The Holy Scripture
1927 E.T. Goodspeed, The Complete Bible: An American Translation
1944 Ronald Knox, The Holy Bible
1946 The Revised Standard Version (The Common Bible)
1950 The New World Testament
1955 H.J. Schonfield, The Authentic New Testament
1958 J.B. Phillips, New Testament in Modern English
1958 The Amplified Bible
1959 The Holy Bible: The Berkely Version in Modern English
1961 The New English Bible
1966 The Jerusalem Bible
1966 Today's English Version
1970 New American Bible
1971 New American Standard Bible
1971 Kenneth Taylor, The Living Bible
1973 New International Version
Biblical Criticism
The word "criticism" is often taken by the public to imply negative judgment. Hence "biblical criticism" is often taken to mean negative judgment against the Bible. Yet it is not necessary to gather this meaning from the use of the word "criticism." When the various types of biblical criticism are considered carefully it becomes clear that biblical criticism helps us to arrive at a clearer understanding of the meaning and relevance of the Bible.
Scholars use the word "criticism" in a slightly different sense than that which is implied in common use. By this word scholars do not mean negative judgment but simply judgment or discernment. The task of the biblical critic, then, is not to find fault with the Bible but to understand it more fully. We will now examine how the various types of biblical criticism adds to our knowledge of the Bible.
The Penguin Dictionary of Religions lists eight types of biblical criticism.1 Each type helps us to appreciate the true worth of the Bible. The first mentioned type is textual criticism. The purpose of this endeavor is to determine as much as possible what text left the pens of the inspired authors. Over time scribal errors are bound to result from even the best human attempts to produce hand-written copies of the Bible over the centuries. Today we have thousands of manuscripts of both the Old and New Testaments from which to reconstruct what must reasonably have been the ancestor from which these texts descended. Since the desire of every Bible believer is presumably to hold on to the one text which God condescended to reveal to us, it is difficult to see why textual criticism should not prove to be of positive benefit.
The second type is source criticism. We understand that the inspired authors were inescapably products of their environments. There exists no reason for excluding the possibility that in composing their works they drew upon existing sources and documents. The author of the third Gospel explicitly makes known in his introduction that he did so exactly draw upon other works (Luke 1:1-4). This type of criticism helps us to understand our existing documents by isolating within them as far as possible the traces remaining of the sources from which they drew. Thus we are better able to understand Genesis, for example, when we come to realize that the book was composed from three main sources. Otherwise much of Genesis would be puzzling if not incomprehensible. The sources are combined in such a fashion that our resulting document which appears in the form of a continuous narrative is actually riddled with repetitions which on occasion contradict each other. Hence the creation of the heavens and the earth is described twice in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Whereas in chapter 1 we learnt that the man was the last item of God’s creating, we learn from chapter 2 that animals were created after the man. Without the help of source criticism here we would be at a loss to understand how a single sane author could have written such a book. Now we can appreciate that our present Genesis is a result of careful scholarly work that went into combining, retaining, and editing existing documents.
A third type, form criticism, helps us to detect the way in which the material developed over time through oral transmission until final inclusion in our present documents. Since it is clear that many of our documents were written long after the events they describe, it is reasonable to assert that the oral material must have been somewhat fluid. Gospel material, therefore, would have been given shape by the situations that the early church experienced. Thus when the early church preached the message about Jesus the teaching about him took on various shapes. Conflict stories, for example, developed to explain why the early church is now in conflict with Jewish leaders. The explanation is cast in the form of a conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees. Hence we find that a conflict should mean more for the situation of the early church than for an understanding of Jesus’ life - situation is represented in Mark 7 as already having occurred during Jesus’ ministry. Jesus is said to have there already declared all foods clean, whereas we know from Acts and Paul that the question of clean versus unclean foods was an unanswered question for the early church.
The positive contribution of this type of criticism is that it helps us to retrace the development of the material about Jesus over time. Often we can understand more about a finished work if we can see the process by which it reaches completion. We do not have this advantage with the books of the Bible, since all we have here are the finished documents. Form criticism helps us to retrace what must have been stages of development along the way.
Historical criticism is the fifth type to consider here. This area of study raises questions having to do with authorship, date, and place of composition of the documents. Most of the Bible would have little meaning for us unless we knew who wrote what when and where. Often we do not have all of this information, but knowing what information we lack also helps us better than if we had not raised the questions in the first place. Knowing, for example, that Hebrews was not written by Paul now leaves us powerless to determine who wrote it. Yet the knowledge that Paul was not the author reduces our chances of misunderstanding Paul and his message which is to be found in his own letters. We can also understand Hebrews better knowing now that we would be unwise to force-fit its theology into a framework of Pauline teachings.
We turn now to another area: redaction criticism. Having considered already how the tradition originated and developed, we can take our study further to consider how each writer used the tradition to meet his own editorial policy. We can see, for example, that although Matthew and Luke both culled sayings of Jesus from a hypothetical Q Gospel, Matthew alone arranged many of those sayings to form a lengthy speech delivered by Jesus while seated on a mountain (Matthew 5-7). Matthew, it would seem, thought it useful to represent Jesus as the new Moses delivering a new law from a mountain. Matthew has also arranged his Gospel into five sections as if to represent by these something new to match the five books of Moses. We understand better what Matthew is trying to say when we recognise his editorial policy, or, to put it another way, how he redacted the material to form his own Gospel.
Canonical criticism is the seventh type mentioned in the Penguin Dictionary of Religions. This type has to do with the question of which documents deserve to be included or not in the canon of scripture. This obviously is not a new discipline since the canon is already fixed. Rather, scholars early in Christian history had already recognised the value of at least this type of criticism. The fact of the canon has served, however, to obscure the diversity among the various included documents. Refreshing this discipline may not lead us to revise the canon. But it would give us a chance to evaluate the message of each document understood in its own right. Unless the writers had penned their documents intending them for inclusion within a larger work, the writers could hardly have intended their messages to be understood in the light of someone else’s. Canonical criticism can help us to avoid confusion between what is the message of each individual document and what is the message of the canon taken as a whole.
The last type to consider here is literary criticism. The purpose of this area of study is to uncover what must have been in the mind of the author as he wrote. This type obviously includes all the areas of study already discussed. What is worth mentioning here is the particular attitude adopted in critical studies. The Bible considered as literature is seen to bear the characteristics of other literature. It is thought, then that a careful student should bring to bear all the tools of literary criticism upon the Bible also. The purpose of this endeavor, again, is not to "criticize" the Bible in the negative sense usually understood by the word among laity. The purpose is to understand more fully what the Bible is saying to us.
Now having stressed so much of the benefits of criticism, a word needs to be said about is negative effects. This caution is directly implied from the already mentioned purpose of trying to discover what was in the mind of this or that author at the time of composition. How is this to be known for certain? The various critical methods are hardly scientific. On almost every question scholarly judgment is sharply divided. This alone points to the degree of subjectivity involved in the process. This of course is not to discourage the process. The caution to be expressed, however, is one that should serve to limit the degree of assurance that accompany this or that pronouncement of scholarly judgment. At the end of the day the scholar must feel humbled by the task at hand. A negative effect of this type of study, then, is one which Paul already expressed in the following words: Knowledge puffs up (1 Corinthians 8:1).
Leaving aside this possibility, however, we have seen that biblical criticism cannot simply be brushed aside by serious students who seek a better understanding of the Bible. The various methods of study already described above all serve the purpose of discovering what the inspired authors of the Bible were saying. To understand the relevance of the Bible for today we need to first determine what relevance it had back then when various parts of it originated, developed, and were eventually written down. As the New American Bible puts it, the Bible is both God’s word and man’s. To understand God’s messages in the Bible we have to first understand the words of the men who wrote them.2
Notes
1- John R. Hinnells, The Penguin Dictionary of Religions (US: Penguin 1995) pp 72-73.
2- The New American Bible, St. Joseph Medium Size Edition (US: Catholic Book Publishing, 1985) p. [19]
Two Different Creation stories
A close examination of Genesis chapters 1 and will show that there are in fact two different Creation myths recorded. The first, which begins at Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:3, has Creation partitioned into six days, with various classes of beings and objects created on each day. The second story, which begins at Genesis 2:4, does not mention the six days at all, and seems to reverse the order of creation for some species.
In Genesis 1, Man and Woman are created together on the sixth day (1:26-27), following the creation of the animals. In the second story, however, a single man, Adam, is created after the plants and placed in the Garden to dress it. (2:4-8). However, the man was lonely. In order to provide companions for him, the animals are created and brought to Adam (2:18-19). After naming all the animals, a companion is still not found for Adam, so God creates a woman (Eve) out of one of Adam's ribs (2:20-23).
The order of creation, according to Genesis 1, is therefore plants (1:12), Sun, Moon and stars (1:16), sea and air creatures (1:21), land animals (1:25) and humans (1:27). In Genesis 2, the order of creation is plants (2:5), the man Adam (2:7), animals (2:19) and finally the female Eve (2:22).
Another feature that distinguishes the two stories may provide a clue to their origin. In the first story, the Deity is always called by the Hebrew Elohim (usually translated God), while the second story uses the name Yahweh Elohim (translated Lord God in the King James Version). It appears that the first story was written by someone who used only the generic term for God, while the second was written by someone who used God's personal name (Yahweh). This feature is actually repeated a number of times in the Old Testament.
which of them u worship?
Krishna was depicted as if crucified. The Persian remembered only the atoning sufferings on the cross of Mithras the Mediator. Aztecs prayed for the return of their crucified saviour, Quexalcoatl, and were rewarded with Cortez. Caucasians chanted praises to their slain Divine Intercessor, Prometheus, for voluntarily offering himself upon the cross for the sins of a fallen race. Yet the Christian disciple hugs to his bosom the bloody cross of the murdered Jesus, confident that only one god ever died for the sins of man.
Tammuz was a god of Assyria, Babylonia and Sumeria where he was known as Dumuzi. He is commemorated in the name of the month of June, Du'uzu, the fourth month of a year which begins at the spring equinox. The fullest history extant of this saviour is probably that of Ctesias (400 BC), author of Persika. The poet has perpetuated his memory in rhyme.
Thulis of Egypt, whence comes Ultima Thule, died the death of the cross about thirty-five hundred years ago.
In Orissa, in Asia, they have the story of a crucified God, known by several names, including the above, all of which, we are told, signify Lord Second, his being the second person or second member of the trinity. Most of the crucified gods occupied that position in a trinity of gods, the Son, in all cases, being the atoning offering. This God Bali was also called Baliu, and sometimes Bel. Monuments of this crucified God, bearing great age, may be found amid the ruins of the magnificent city of Mahabalipore, partially buried amongst the figures of the temple.
To retain their following, Christianity is based on unchangeable dogmas which disciples must accept to the exclusion of all knowledge adverse to their own creed. Whenever they are able they actually destroy contrary evidence for fear of rivalry. Then they magnify their own religion to a unique position above all others.
The earlier Christian saints, having determined like Paul, to know only Jesus Christ and him crucified, made stern efforts to obliterate from the page of history facts damaging to their case.
A report on the Hindu religion, made out by a deputation from the British Parliament, sent to India to examine their sacred books and monuments, was left in the hands of a Christian bishop at Calcutta, with instructions to forward it to England. On its arrival in London, it was so horribly mutilated as to be scarcely recognisable. The account of the crucifixion was gone. The inference is patent.
The disciples of the Christian faith have burnt books, blotted out passages and bowdlerised testaments which suggested the opposite of their belief. Not only that, they have demolished monuments showing crucifixions of previous atoning gods so that they are now unknown. Hence, the disbelief of Christians when other cases are mentioned.
Kersey Graves, in a well known book written over a century ago, gives examples of sixteen crucified gods or saviours. Most are very ancient and arguable, depending upon the interpretation of pictures or scuptures since no original written sources now exist, often victims of Christians determined to preserve the memory of only one crucified god.
For the same reasons the dates of their occurrence are doubtful and because chronology before the time of Alexander the Great (330 BC) is far from certain, and the dating of icons, especially from distant or isolated cultures is uncertain. Even mainstream studies of the ancient Near East are involved in controversy over dates, Peter James for example claiming in a well argued case that several centuries have been mistakenly inserted into near Eastern chronologies. It is certain these crucifixions occurred before the time of Christ, but their exact date cannot be fixed.
These crucifixions are not vouchsafed as actual occurrences. The objective is not to prove them real events but simply that the belief in the crucifixion of gods was prevalent long before the crucifixion of Christ. To establish this point then six will prove it as well as sixteen. Indeed, one case is sufficient. The reader is left to decide.
Tammuz was a god of Assyria, Babylonia and Sumeria where he was known as Dumuzi. He is commemorated in the name of the month of June, Du'uzu, the fourth month of a year which begins at the spring equinox. The fullest history extant of this saviour is probably that of Ctesias (400 BC), author of Persika. The poet has perpetuated his memory in rhyme.
Trust, ye saints, your Lord restored,
Trust ye in your risen Lord;
For the pains which Tammuz endured
Our salvation have procured.
Tammuz was crucified as an atonement offering: Trust ye in God, for out of his loins salvation has come unto us. Julius Firmicus speaks of this God rising from the dead for the salvation of the world. This saviour which long preceded the advent of Christ, filled the same role in sacred history.
Wittoba is represented in his story with nail-holes in his hands and the soles of his feet. Nails, hammers and pincers are constantly seen represented on his crucifixes and are objects of adoration among his followers, just as the iron crown of Lombardy has within it a nail claimed to be of his true original cross, and is much admired and venerated for that reason. The worship of this crucified God prevails chiefly in the Travancore and other southern states of India in the region of Madura.
Iao of Nepal 622 BC.
Iao was crucified on a tree in Nepal. The name of this incarnate god and oriental saviour occurs frequently in the holy bibles and sacred books of other countries. Some suppose that Iao is the root of the name of the Jewish God, Yehouah (Jehovah), often abbreviated to Yeho.
Hesus of the Celtic Druids 834 BC.
The Celtic Druids depict their god Hesus as having been crucified with a lamb on one side and an elephant on the other, and that this occurred long before the Christian era.
The elephant, being the largest animal known, was chosen to represent the magnitude of the sins of the world, while the lamb, from its proverbial innocent nature, was chosen to represent the innocence of the victim, the god offered as a propitiatory sacrifice. We have the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world. The Lamb of God could therefore have been borrowed from the Druids. This legend was found in Gaul long before Jesus Christ was known to history.
Quezalcoatl of Mexico 587 BC.
Historical authority of the crucifixion of this Mexican god is explicit, unequivocal and ineffaceable. The evidence is tangible, and indelibly engraven upon metal plates. One of these plates represents him as having been crucified on a mountain. Another represents him as having been crucified in the heavens, as St Justin tells us Christ was. Sometimes he is represented as having been nailed to a cross, sometimes with two thieves hanging with him, and sometimes as hanging with a cross in his hand.
Quirinius of Rome 506 BC.
The crucifixion of this Roman saviour is remarkable for the parallel features to that of the Judaean saviour, not only in the circumstances of his crucifixion, but also in much of his antecedent life.
He is represented, like Christ:
As having been conceived and brought forth by a virgin.
His life was sought by the reigning king, Amulius.
He was of royal blood, his mother being of kingly descent.
He was put to death by wicked hands or crucified.
At his mortal exit the whole earth is said to have been enveloped in darkness, as in the case of Christ, Krishna, and Prometheus.
And finally he is resurrected, and ascends back to heaven.
Prometheus 547 B.C.
The crucifixion of Prometheus of Caucasus, described by Seneca, Hesiod, and other writers, states that he was nailed to an upright beam of timber, to which were affixed extended arms of wood, and that this cross was situated near the Caspian Straits. The modern story of this crucified God, which has him bound to a rock for thirty years, while vultures preyed upon his vitals, is a Christian fraud.
The poet, in portraying his propitiatory offering, says:
Lo! streaming from the fatal tree
His all atoning blood,
Is this the Infinite?–Yes, 'tis he,
Prometheus, and a god!
Well might the sun in darkness hide,
And veil his glories in,
When God, the great Prometheus, died
For man the creature's sin.
It is doubtful whether there is to be found in the whole range of Greek letters deeper pathos than that of the divine woe of the beneficent demigod Prometheus, crucified on his Scythian crags for his love to mortals. When he dies:
That the whole frame of nature became convulsed.
The earth shook, the rocks were rent, the graves were opened, and in a storm, which seemed to threaten the dissolution of the universe, the solemn scene forever closed, and Our Lord and saviour Prometheus gave up the ghost.
The cause for which he suffered was his love for the human race. The whole story of Prometheus' crucifixion, burial and resurrection was acted in pantomime in Athens five hundred years before Christ, which proves its great antiquity. Minutius Felix, one of the most popular Christian writers of the second century addresses the people of Rome:
Your victorious trophies not only represent a simple cross, but a cross with a man on it, and this man St. Jerome calls a god.
These coincidences are more proof that the tradition of the crucifixion of gods has been very long prevalent among the heathen
Thulis of Egypt, whence comes Ultima Thule, died the death of the cross about thirty-five hundred years ago.
Ultima Thule was the island which marked the ultimate bounds of the extensive empire of this legitimate descendant of the gods.
This Egyptian saviour appears also to have been known as Zulis. His history is curiously illustrated in the sculptures, made seventeen hundred years BC of a small, retired chamber lying nearly over the western adytum of the temple. Twenty-eight lotus plants near his grave indicate the number of years he lived on the earth. After suffering a violent death, he was buried, but rose again, ascended into heaven, and there became the judge of the dead, or of souls in a future state. He came down from heaven to benefit mankind, and that he was said to be full of grace and truth.
Indra of Tibet 725 BC.
This Tibetan saviour is shown nailed to the cross. There are five wounds, representing the nail-holes and the piercing of the side. The antiquity of the story is beyond dispute.
Marvellous stories are told of the birth of the Divine Redeemer. His mother was a virgin of black complexion, and hence his complexion was of the ebony hue, as in the case of Christ and some other sin-atoning saviours. He descended from heaven on a mission of benevolence, and ascended back to the heavenly mansion after his crucifixion. He led a life of strict celibacy, which, he taught, was essential to true holiness. He inculcated great tenderness toward all living beings. He could walk upon the water or upon the air; he could foretell future events with great accuracy. He practised the most devout contemplation, severe discipline of the body and mind, and completely subdued his passions. He was worshiped as a god who had existed as a spirit from all eternity, and his followers were called Heavenly Teachers.
Alcestos of Euripides 600 BC.
A less usual crucified God was Alcestos, who was female, the only example of a feminine God atoning for the sins of the world upon the cross. The doctrine of the trinity and atoning offering for sin was inculcated as a part of her religion.
Attis of Phrygia 1170 BC.
Speaking of this crucified Messiah, the Anacalypsis informs us that several histories are given of him, but all concur in representing him as having been an atoning offering for sin. And the Latin phrase suspensus lingo, found in his history, indicates the manner of his death. He was suspended on a tree, crucified, buried and rose again.
Crite of Chaldaea 1200 BC.
The Chaldeans have noted in their sacred books the crucifixion of a god with the above name. He was also known as the Redeemer, and was styled the Ever Blessed Son of God, the saviour of the Race, the Atoning Offering for an Angry God. When he was offered up, both heaven and earth were shaken to their foundations.
In Orissa, in Asia, they have the story of a crucified God, known by several names, including the above, all of which, we are told, signify Lord Second, his being the second person or second member of the trinity. Most of the crucified gods occupied that position in a trinity of gods, the Son, in all cases, being the atoning offering. This God Bali was also called Baliu, and sometimes Bel. Monuments of this crucified God, bearing great age, may be found amid the ruins of the magnificent city of Mahabalipore, partially buried amongst the figures of the temple.
Mithras of Persia 600 BC.
This Persian God was slain upon the cross to make atonement for mankind, and to take away the sins of the world. He was born on the twenty-fifth day of December, and crucified on a tree. Christian writers both speak of his being slain, and yet both omit to speak of the manner in which he was put to death. And the same policy has been pursued with respect to other crucified gods of the pagans, as we have shown.
Devatat of Siam, Ixion of Rome, Apollonius of Tyana in Cappadocia, are all reported to have died on the cross."
Ixion, 400 BC, was crucified on a wheel, the rim representing the world, and the spokes constituting the cross. He bore the burden of the world, the sins of the world, on his back while suspended on the cross. He was therefore called the crucified spirit of the world.
It is curious that Christian writers will recount a long list of miracles and remarkable incidents in the life of Apollonius of Tyana, the Cappadocian saviour, forming a parallel to those of the Christian saviour, yet say not a word about his crucifixion.
Christian writers find it necessary to omit the crucifixion of these saviours fearing the telling would lessen the spiritual force of the crucifixion of Christ, which has to be unique. They thus exalted the tradition of the crucifixion into the most important dogma of the Christian faith. Hence, their efforts to conceal from the public the fact that it is of pagan origin.
Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry says that Freemasons secretly taught the doctrine of the crucifixion, atonement and resurrection preceded the Christian era, and that similar doctrines were taught in all the ancient mysteries.
now after all that who's jesus christ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)