Divine Truth

Divine Truth

The Origins of Jaudaism and Christianity

The Origin of the word “Judaism”

The origin of the term Jew is from the Hebrew Yehudi (יהודי), being the people of Yehudah (יהודה), where Yehudah is translated by the English translators of the Bible as Judah.

In Arabic and Indonesian, the term Jews are pronounced as “Yahudi” or “Yahudiah”. In German, it is “Juden”.

After the death of Solomon, the nation of Israel broke into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Israel (which had about 10 tribes) and the Kingdom of Judah, which had about 2 tribes (Judah and Benjamin, with Judah being substantially larger). The kingdom of Israel was lost and exiled. What remained were the people of the kingdom of Judah who were known by that collective name “Judah-ites” (Yehudim in Hebrew — cf the scroll of Esther, chapter 2 in which Mordechai is listed as an “Ish yehudi” a man of Judah who was from the tribe of Benjamin).

Yehudi was appropriated by other languages and became Jude or the like (Juden etc). Juda-ism developed as the term for the belief system of those from this kingdom. Hense the teachings of Moses (pbuh) became known as Judiasm. According to historians, Moses (pbuh) never described himself or said he was part of “Judaism”. Historians also add that the word Judaism came from the enemies of Jews. They said that this “religion” is the religion of Juda’s son. Nowhere in the Torah is the religion “Judaiams” Mentioned. Hence, God had never named the teachings given to Moses (pbuh) by God as Judaism.

The Origin of the word “Christianity”

The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning “follower of Christ”, comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning “anointed one”, with an adjectival ending borrowed from Latin to denote adhering to, or even belonging to, as in slave ownership.

The word Christianity cannot be found in the Bible, not even in a Bible dictionary. Specifically, we did not find it anywhere in the Bible where Jesus (pbuh) called his followers Christians.

The word Christian was first mentioned by a pagan to describe those who followed Jesus (pbuh). It is mentioned one of three times in the New Testament by a pagan and Jews in Antioch about 43 A.D., (Acts 11 :26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16) long after Jesus (pbuh) had left this earth.

Acts 11:26

“…and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.”


Christian teaching and beliefs is taught from the Bible which is made up of the Old Testament, essentially the Torah teachings of the Jews and the New Testament taught by Jesus (pbuh) and who’s followers were eventully called Christians.


The purpose of this article is to reveal truth and to expose the deceptions of satan upon mankind. Furthermore, this articel will expose the lies told about Jesus (pbuh), one of the most beloved messengers of God and to protect his good name and the good work that he has done.  Many lies and false teachings was introduced into Christianity about Jesus (pbuh) by the church leading people to false worship.

Satan has successfully misled more than two thirds of the world who now follow his lies. The true belief in God amongst these people are lost and satan has successfully indoctrinated belief in his teaching for more than 1500 years.

And satan had already confirmed through them his assumption, so they followed him, except for a party of believers. (Quran 34:20)

The Bible tells us how satan has deceived people;

Genesis 3:1-5 New International Version (NIV)

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

2 Corinthians 11:3 

But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:4 

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Christians think that they follow Jesus but they really follow Satan and teachings of their rulers who is the church who deceives them into false belief.

Ephesians 6:12 

12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

And God says that he has sent numerous prophets over time but yet the people do not listen

Jeremiah 29:19 

19 For they have not listened to my words,” declares the Lord, “words that I sent to them again and again by my servants the prophets. And you exiles have not listened either,” declares the Lord.

Jeremiah 13:10 

10 These wicked people, who refuse to listen to my words, who follow the stubbornness of their hearts and go after other gods to serve and worship them, will be like this belt—completely useless!

Isaiah 42:20 

20 You have seen many things, but you pay no attention; your ears are open, but you do not listen.”

2 Timothy 4:4

They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Jeremiah 32:33 

33 They turned their backs to me and not their faces; though I taught them again and again, they would not listen or respond to discipline.

And even Jesus (pbuh) has said that the people do not listen to him but they listen to your father satan.

John 8:42-47 

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

The Quran clearly tells us how satan has vowed to deceive mankind;

Iblees (satan)) said: “O my Lord! Because you misled me, I shall indeed adorn the path of error for them (mankind) on the earth, and I shall mislead them all. “Except Your chosen, (guided) slaves among them” (Quran 39 – 40).

“(Iblees) said: ‘Because You have sent me astray, surely, I will sit in wait against them (human beings) on Your straight path. Then I will come to them from before them and behind them, from their right and from their left, and You will not find most of them as thankful ones (i.e. they will not be dutiful to You)’” (Quran 16,17).

Satan tells us that Allah has revealed the truth and that he has misguided you and he had no authority over you except that he has invited you to his evil and deceitful ways, leading you away from the truth. Satan tells you that you cannot blame him, nor can you call on his help and he will deny that he knows you and you will indeed suffer a painful punishment for following him.

And satan will say when the matter has been concluded, “Indeed, Allah had promised you the promise of truth. And I promised you, but I betrayed you. But I had no authority over you except that I invited you, and you responded to me. So do not blame me; but blame yourselves. I cannot be called to your aid, nor can you be called to my aid. Indeed, I deny your association of me [with Allah] before. Indeed, for the wrongdoers is a painful punishment.” (Quran 14:22)

The deception of satan is undeniable. We find today that Christians believe in a Trinity where God is 3 but is still one; Christians are taught that Jesus (pbuh) is the son of God and that Jesus (pbuh) is God and Christians are taught that Jesus (pbuh) has died for their sins. We will now undertake to prove the deception of satan within Christianity.

Christian Background and Beliefs

Christianity, a major religion stemming from the life, teachings, and death of Jesus (pbuh) of Nazareth (the Christ, or Messiah) in the 1st century ce. It is believed by Christians that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, i.e., they believe there’s only one God through the Trinity. Christians believe this divine Godhead consists of three parts: the father (God himself), the son (Jesus Christ (pbuh)) and the Holy Ghost. Though Christians believe Christianity is a monotheistic religion it is in fact not. The catechism states that father is a person, the son is a person and the Holy Ghost is a person. The Father is divine, the son is devine and the Holy Ghost is divine, three separate persons but who are one. All three are equal in every way.

Christian beliefs center on the life of Jesus (pbuh) of Nazareth, a teacher and healer who lived in first century Palestine. The primary source of information about the life of Jesus (pbuh) are the Gospels, which were written sometime between 50 and 110 years after his death and became the first four books of the New Testament. The Gospels describe approximately three-year teaching and healing ministry during which Jesus (pbuh) attracted 12 close disciples and other followers who believed him to be the Messiah (Christos).

The 12 disciples are:

  1. Peter
  2. James
  3. John
  4. Andrew
  5. Bartholomew or Nathanael
  6. James, the Lesser or Younger
  7. Judas
  8. Jude or Thaddeus
  9. Matthew or Levi
  10. Philip
  11. Simon the Zealot
  12. Thomas

Jesus’ (pbuh) teachings focused on the themes of the kingdom of God, love of God and love of neighbor. Along with some of his teachings, his growing popularity with the masses was seen as dangerous by Jewish religious leaders and the Roman government, leading to his execution by crucifixion.

The essence of Christianity revolves around the life, death and Christian beliefs on the resurrection of Jesus (pbuh). Christians believe God sent his son Jesus Christ (pbuh), the messiah, to save the world. They believe Jesus (pbuh) was crucified on a cross to offer the forgiveness of sins and was resurrected three days after his death before ascending to heaven.

Christians contend that Jesus (pbuh) will return to earth again in what’s known as the Second Coming.

The Bible includes important scriptures that outline Jesus’ (pbuh) teachings, the lives and teachings of Major Prophets and disciples, and offer instructions for how Christians should live.

The sacred text of Christianity is the Christian Bible, which consists of the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible) consisting of either 39, 46 or 49 books depending on the branch of Christianity. The New Testament contains 27 books four gospels (narratives of Jesus’ (pbuh) life), one account of the apostles’ ministry after Jesus’ (pbuh) death, letters from church leaders (the earliest of which predate the Gospels), and an apocalyptic book.

Nearly all Christians regard the Bible as divinely inspired and authoritative, but views differ as to the nature and extent of its authority. Some hold it to be completely without error in all matters it addresses, while others stress its accuracy only in religious matters and allow for errors or limitations in other areas due to its human authorship.

Christianity has divided into three major branches. Roman Catholicism represents the continuation of the historical organized church as it developed over the centuries, and is headed by the Pope. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism separated in 1054, when the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope excommunicated each other.

Eastern Orthodoxy (which includes the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches and several others) differs from Catholicism in its refusal of allegiance to the Pope, its emphasis on the use of icons in worship, and the date it celebrates Easter. Other cultural, political, and religious differences exist as well.

Protestantism arose in the 16th century. Protestants do not acknowledge the authority of the Pope, reject many traditions and beliefs of the Catholic Church, and emphasize the importance of reading the Bible and the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. Protestantism encompasses numerous denominational groups, including Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and Evangelicals.

Christian practices vary by denomination, but common elements include a Sunday worship service, private and corporate prayer, study and reading of the Scriptures, and participation in the rites of baptism and communion. Distinctive Catholic practices include recognition of seven sacraments, devotion to Mary and the saints, and veneration of relics and sacred sites associated with holy figures. Eastern Orthodoxy holds many practices in common with Catholicism, but is especially distinguished by the central role of icons.

The most important Christian holiday is Easter, a spring holiday that celebrates the belief of Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Easter is immediately preceded by Holy Week, which includes Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, and Good Friday. The 40 days prior to Easter form the Lenten season, a time of fasting and repentance. Another holiday that has become important is Christmas, which commemorates the birth of Jesus on December 25 (January 6 in Orthodox Churches). Saints’ days are also important. Some of these, such as St. Patrick’s Day and St. Valentine’s Day, have come to play a prominent role in popular American culture.

The main differences between Catholics and Protestants

They worship the same God, but the principles of their faith are different. Five hundred years after the Reformation, there are still painful divisions between Protestants and Catholics.

In Germany, the country of the Reformation, a deep animosity divided Catholic and Protestant Christians up until a few decades ago. This division had deepened over the centuries through religious conflicts and wars.

It all started when Reformation took place, 500 years ago, as Martin Luther (1483-1546) tried to reform the Catholic Church. His attempt to do so instead led to a schism in the church.

On October 31, 1517, the publication of his Ninety-Five Theses, which outlined various abusive practices of the church, is considered the founding event that led to this division in Germany and the creation of the Evangelical Church.

Read more:Martin Luther’s daring revolution: The Reformation 500 years on

  1. The Bible and Understanding of the Bible

Many Christians are surprised to learn that the Catholic Bible is different from the Bible used by Protestants. … The Catholic Bible contains a total of 73 books, 46 in the Old Testament (Protestant Bibles have 39) and 27 in the New Testament (the same as Protestant Bibles).

Catholicism and Protestantism have distinct views on the meaning and the authority of the Bible. For Protestant Christians, Luther made clear that the Bible is the “Sola Skriptura,” God’s only book, in which He provided His revelations to the people and which allows them to enter in communion with Him.

Catholics, on the other hand, do not base their beliefs on the Bible alone. Along with the Holy Scripture, they are additionally bound by the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.

  1. Understanding the church

Catholics and Protestants have a different view on the nature of the church. The word “catholic” means “all-embracing,” and the Catholic Church sees itself as the only true church worldwide, under the leadership of the pope.

In contrast, the Protestant Churches which have emerged from Reformation, also called “Evangelical,” which means “according to the Gospel,” do not make up one united Church. There are rather several tens of thousands of different denominations around the world. Officially, all of these many churches are considered equal.

  1. The pope

Protestants are not open at all to papal primacy. According to the Evangelical view, this dogma contradicts statements in the Bible.

Catholics see in the pope the successor of the Apostle Peter, the first head of their Church, who was appointed by Jesus. The papal office is justified by an allegedly unbroken chain of consecrations, ranging from the first century to the present.

  1. Understanding of the office

This continuous chain, known as the apostolic succession, is overall significant for different spiritual offices in the Catholic Church. With the Sacrament of Holy Orders, bishops, priests and deacons receive a lifelong seal of God giving them sacramental authority over Catholic laypeople. This consecration can only be given to men.

Protestants do not consecrate specific persons into office, but rather accept the principle that priesthood can be transferred to every believer — even to women.

  1. Eucharist or Lord’s Supper

The Catholics’ views on the spiritual office are reflected in the Eucharist, or Holy Communion, a rite commemorating the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples before his crucifixion. Once consecrated by a priest in the name of Jesus, bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Non-Catholics may not participate in Communion.
In the Protest Church, every baptized person is invited to share and is allowed to lead the Lord’s Supper. This approach is not accepted by Catholics.

Additionally, Eucharist has a different meaning for Catholics and Protestants. The bread, known as the Host, embodies Jesus and can therefore be prayed to. For Protestants, the ritual only serves to commemorate Jesus’ death and resurrection.

  1. Sacraments

In the Roman Catholic Church, there are seven solemn rites, called sacraments: baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, penance, holy orders and extreme unction. The church believes these sacraments were instituted by Jesus and that they confer God’s grace.

Most Protestant churches only practice two of these sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist (called Lord’s Supper). They are perceived as symbolic rituals through which God delivers the Gospel. They are accepted through faith.

Read more: How Martin Luther became the first Christian pop star

  1. Marian dogmas and the worship of Saints

The Roman Catholic Church reveres Mary, the mother of Jesus, as “Queen of Heaven.” However, there are few biblical references to support the Catholic Marian dogmas — which include the Immaculate Conception, her perpetual virginity and her Assumption into heaven. This is why they are rejected by Protestants. The Catholic Church also practices the veneration of saints. Dead models of faith, recognized as “saint” by the church through canonization, can be prayed to for help in maintaining faith in God. There are over 4,000 saints. Their remains are considered holy relics which are venerated.

This veneration is also categorically by the Protestant Church as unbiblical. According to Reformation views, every person may and should pray directly to God.

  1. Celibacy

All main world religions integrate in some way the concept of celibacy, the vow of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, and the Catholic and Protestant churches are no exception. In the Catholic Church, celibacy is obligatory for priests. It is seen as a symbol of the undivided succession of Christ.

The Protestant Church rejects this obligation for priests. Martin Luther already demanded its abolition as early as 1520. He made a decisive personal contribution to this end in 1525: The former monk married the former nun Katharina von Bora. Initially unsure of whether he should marry, Luther finally determined that “his marriage would please his father, rile the pope, cause the angels to laugh, and the devils to weep.”

The Plain Truth about the Roman Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church claims to have started in Matthew 16:18 when Christ supposedly appointed Peter as the first Pope. However, the honest and objective student of the Scriptures and history soon discovers that the foundation of the Roman church is none other than the pagan mystery religion of ancient Babylon.

While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of “bishops” ruling over hierarchies. The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. Ministers became “priests,” and pagans became “Christians” by simply being sprinkled with water. This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism.

The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new “Christianity” the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.). This ungodly system eventually ushered in the darkest period of history known to man, properly known as the “Dark Ages” (500-1500 A.D.). Through popes, bishops, and priests, Satan ruled Europe, and Biblical Christianity became illegal.

Throughout all of this, however, there remained individual groups of true Christians, such as the Waldensens and the Anabaptists who would not conform to the Roman system.

The Papacy and Priesthood

In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest “father” is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).

The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who spoke against “being lords over God’s heritage” in I Peter 5:3. Popes do not marry, although Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5). The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans. In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter’s first epistle he stated that he was simply “an apostle of Jesus Christ,” not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1). The Roman papacy and priesthood is just a huge fraud to keep members in bondage to a corrupt pagan church.

The Worship of Mary

Roman Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and was sinless all of her life. She is worshiped in the Catholic Church as the “Mother of God” and the “Queen of Heaven.” St. Bernard stated that she was crowned “Queen of Heaven” by God the Father, and that she currently sits upon a throne in Heaven making intercession for Christians.

The Bible teaches otherwise. In the Bible, Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. She said herself that she needed a “Saviour” (Lk. 1:47), and she even had to offer a sacrifice for her sins in Luke 2:24. Jesus was only her “firstborn” son, according to Matthew 1:25, because she later had other children as well (Mt. 13:55; Gal. 1:19; Psa. 69:8). There’s only ONE mediator between God and men, and it isn’t Mary (I Tim. 2:5). The last time we hear from Mary in the Bible she is praying WITH the disciples, not being prayed to BY the disciples (Acts 1:14). The Bible never exalts Mary above anyone else. Neither should we.


The Catholic Church teaches that a Christian’s soul must burn in purgatory after death until all of their sins have been purged. To speed up the purging process, money may be paid to a priest so he can pray and have special masses for an earlier release.

This heresy began creeping into the Roman Church during the reign of Pope Gregory around the end of the sixth century, and it has no scriptural support. In fact, Jesus warned us about this pagan practice in Matthew 23:14 when He spoke of those who devoured widow’s houses and made long prayers for a pretence. Psalm 49:6-7 tells us that a person couldn’t redeem a loved one, even if such a place did exist: “They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:”

Peter addresses this issue in Acts 8:20 when he says, “Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.” God’s word is clearly against the doctrine of purgatory.

The Mass

By perverting the Christian practice of the Lord’s Supper (Mat. 26:26-28; I Cor. 11:23-27), the Catholic Church has created the Mass, which they believe to be a continual sacrifice of Jesus Christ:

“Christ…commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: “Mass, Sacrifice of”)

Jesus never made such a command. If you’ll check the above references in Matthew 26 and I Corinthians 11, you’ll see for yourself that the Lord’s Supper is a MEMORIAL and a SHOWING of Christ’s death until He comes again. It is not a sacrifice. The Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:

“In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. It is called transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into his blood, the species or outward semblence of bread and wine alone remaining.” (Vol. 4, pg. 277, Article: “Consecration”)

The Catholic Church teaches that the “Holy Mass” is a LITERAL EATING AND DRINKING OF THE LITERAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. The priest supposedly has the power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

Now, what does God’s word say about such practices? If you’ll read Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11-12, and Acts 15:29, you will find that God absolutely FORBIDS the drinking of blood all through the Bible.

Rome teaches that the Mass is a continual “sacrifice” of Jesus Christ, but God’s word states that Jesus made the FINAL sacrifice on Calvary! This is made perfectly clear in Hebrews 10:10-12:

“By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”

The mass is unnecessary and unscriptural.

Image Worship

The Catholic religion is filled with all sorts of symbols, images, and relics. The Catechism of the Council of Trent states these words:

“It is lawful to have images in the Church, and to give honor and worship unto them…”

It’s lawful to honor and worship images? Not according to God’s word. Exodus 20:4-5 says, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” Image worship is unscriptural and will end with the eternal damnation of those who practice it (Rev. 14:11).

Secret History of the Papal Rome

The majority of people today, including Roman Catholics do not know about the true bloody history of the Papal Church of Rome. The true history of the Roman Catholic Church has been hidden away from the eyes of the masses, through the re-writing of the history books, so that they cannot see the truth about the antichrist church, otherwise known as Babylon, the Mother of Harlots. But on this page we will give you a glimpse into the history of Papal Rome, with a timeline of events that took place during the past 1000 years.

“Under the guise of Christianity, the Papal Church committed more enormities than ever disgraced the annals of paganism. Disregarding the maxims and the spirit of the Gospel, the papal Church, arming herself with the power of the sword, vexed the Church of God and wasted it for several centuries, a period most appropriately termed in history, the ‘dark ages’. “The kings of the earth, gave their power to the Beast.” (Fox’s Book of Martyrs, Ch. IV)

“Roman Catholicism was born in blood, has wallowed in blood, and has quenched its thirst in blood, and it is in letters of blood that its true history is written.” (Baron DePonnat, 1940)

“And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” (Revelation 17:6)

I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits, said Hitler … Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic Church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.” (Hermann Rauschning, former national-socialist chief of the government of Dantzig: ‘Hitler m’a dit’, (Ed. Co-operation, Paris 1939, pp.266, 267, 273 ss).

During her full reign of terror, the Papacy had caused the cruel death of at least 50 MILLION people. The following are quotes from the few available history books concerning Papal persecutions.

“Bertrand, the Papal Legate, wrote a letter to Pope Honorius, desiring to be recalled from the croisade against the primitive witnesses and contenders for the faith. In that authentic document, he stated, that within fifteen years, 300,000 of those crossed soldiers had become victims to their own fanatical and blind fury. Their unrelenting and insatiable thirst for Christian and human blood spared none within the reach of their impetuous despotism and unrestricted usurpations. On the river Garonne, a conflict occurred between the croisaders, with their ecclesiastical leaders, the Prelates of Thoulouse and Comminges; who solemnly promised to all their vassals the full pardon of sin, and the possession of heaven immediately, if they were slain in the battle. The Spanish monarch and his confederates acknowledged that they must have lost 400,000 men, in that tremendous conflict, and immediately after it-but the Papists boasted, that including the women and children, they had massacred more than two millions of the human family, in that solitary croisade against the southwest part of France.” (Bourne, George, The American Textbook of Popery, Griffith & Simon, Philadelphia, 1846, pp. 402-403)

“The Catholic crusade against the Albigenses in Southern France (from 1209-1229), under Popes Innocent III., Honorius III. and Gregory IX., was one of the bloodiest tragedies in human history … The number of Albigenses that perished in the twenty years war is estimated at from one to two millions.” (Cushing B. Hassell, History of the Church of God, Chapter XIV)

“Need I speak to you of the thirty years war in Germany, which was mainly instigated by the Jesuits, in order to deprive the Protestants of the right of free religious worship, secured to them by the treaty of Augsburg? Or of the Irish rebellion, of the inhuman butchery of about fifteen millions of Indians in South America, Mexico and Cuba, by the Spanish papists? In short, it is calculated by authentic historians, that papal Rome has shed the blood of sixty-eight millions of the human race in order to establish her unfounded claims to religious dominion.” (The Glorious Reformation by S. S. SCHMUCKER, 1838 — citing Dr. Brownlee’s ‘Popery an enemy to civil liberty’, p. 105)

“This was the century of the last religious wars in Christendom, the Thirty Years War in Germany, fomented by the Jesuits, reducing the people to cannibalism, and the population of Bohemia from 4,000,000 to 780,000, and of Germany from 20,000,000 to 7,000,000, and making Southern Germany almost a desert.” (Cushing B. Hassell, History of the Church of God, Chapter XVII)

“In one word, the church of Rome has spent immense treasures and shed, in murder, the blood of sixty eight millions and five hundred thousand of the human race, to establish before the astonished and disgusted world, her fixed determination to annihilate every claim set up by the human family to liberty, and the right of unbounded freedom of conscience.” (W C Brownlee, Popery an enemy to civil liberty, 1836, pp. 104-105)

“There perished under pope Julian 200,000 Christians: and by the French massacre, on a moderate calculation, in 3 months, 100,000. Of the Waldenses there perished 150,000; of the Albigenses, 150,000. There perished by the Jesuits in 30 years only 900,000. The Duke of Alva destroyed by the common hangman alone, 36,000 persons; the amount murdered by him is set down by Grotius at 100,000! There perished by the fire, and tortures of the Inquisition in Spain, Italy, and France 150,000 … In the Irish massacres there perished 150,000 Protestants! To sum up the whole, the Roman Catholic church has caused the ruin, and destruction of a million and a half of Moors in Spain; nearly two millions of Jews South America in Europe. In Mexico, and , including the islands of Cuba and St. Domingo, fifteen millions of Indians, in 40 years, fell victims to popery. And in Europe, and the East Indies, and in America, 50 millions of Protestants, at least, have been murdered by it! Thus the church of Rome stands before the world, ‘the woman in scarlet, on the scarlet colored Beast.’ A church claiming to be Christian, drenched in the blood of sixty-eight millions, and five hundred thousand human beings!” (W. C. Brownlee, Letters in the Roman Catholic controversy, 1834, pp. 347-348)

“Alexander Campbell, well known religions leader of the nineteenth century, stated in debate with John B. Purcell, Bishop of Cincinnati, in 1837 that the records of historians and martyrologists show that it may be reasonable to estimate that from fifty to sixty-eight millions of human beings died, suffered torture, lost their possessions, or were otherwise devoured by the Roman Catholic Church during the awful years of the Inquisition. Bishop Purcell made little effort to refute these figures.” (Citing A Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion, Christian Publishing Co., 1837, p. 327.) … (The Shadow of Rome, by John B. Wilder; Zondervan Publishing Co., 1960, page 87)

“Let us keep a sense of proportion. The record of ‘Christianity’ [Roman Catholic] from the days when it first obtained the power to persecute is one of the most ghastly in history. The total number of Manichaeans, Arians, Priscillianists, Paulicians, Bogomiles, Cathari, Waldensians, Albigensians, witches, Lollards, Hussites, Jews and Protestants killed because of their rebellion against Rome clearly runs to many millions; and beyond these actual executions or massacres is the enormously larger number of those who were tortured, imprisoned, or beggared. I am concerned rather with the positive historical aspect of this. In almost every century a large part of the race has endeavored to reject the Christian religion, and, if in those centuries there had been the same freedom as we enjoy, Roman Catholicism would, in spite of the universal ignorance, have shrunk long ago into a sect. The religious history of Europe has never yet been written.” (The Story Of Religious Controversy Chapter XXIII by Joseph McCabe (an atheist) who lived from 1867 to 1955)

“Mede has calculated from good authorities ‘that in the war with the Albigenses and Waldenses there perished of these people, in France alone, 1,000,000.'” (Christ and Antichrist, by Samuel J. Cassels, 1846, page 257)

“Who have their dungeon cells under their cathedrals, in which they claim, as inquisitors of their own diocese, to imprison free men in our republic? Foreign popish bishops! And the facts respecting a man being so confined and scourged, in the cells at Baltimore [AMERICA], until he recanted, have been published, and not to this day contradicted! … Who are in the habit of uttering ferocious threats to assassinate and burn up those Protestants who successfully oppose Romanism? The foreign papists! I have in my possession the evidence of no less than six such inhuman threatenings against myself.” (W. C. Brownlee, Popery the Enemy of Civil and Religious Liberty, J. S. Taylor, New York, 1836, p.210-211)

“It is reckoned that during the reign of Justinian, Africa lost five millions of inhabitants; thus Arianism was extinguished in that region, not by any enforcement of conformity, but by the extermination of the race which had introduced and professed it. – History of the Christian Church, J.C. Robertson, Vol. 1, p. 521.” (Bunch, Taylor, The Book of Daniel, p. 101)

[footnote, speaking of Pope Innocent VIII] “Yet on the papal throne he played the zealot against the Germans, whom he accused of magic, in his bull Summis desiderantes affectibus, etc., and also against the Hussites, whom he well nigh exterminated.” (Williams, Henry Smith, The Historian’s History of the World, vol. 8, p. 643)

“The inquisitor Reinerius, who died in 1259, has left it on record: ‘Concerning the sects of ancient heretics, observe, that there have been more than seventy: all of which, except the sects of the Manichaeans and the Arians and the Runcarians and the Leonists which have infected Germany, have through the favour of God, been destroyed.” (Broadbent, E.H., The Pilgrim Church, Gospel Folio Press, 2002, p. 90 (originally published in 1931)

“An edict was issued under the regency of Theodora, which decreed that the Paulicians should be exterminated by fire and sword, or brought back to the Greek church … It is affirmed by civil and ecclesiastical historians, that, in a short reign, one hundred thousand Paulicians were put to death.” (Andrew Miller, Short Papers on Church, London, Chapter 16)

“The whole number of victims who have been offered up in Europe since the beginning of the Reformation? Partly by war, partly by the Inquisition, and a thousand other methods of Romish cruelty? No less within forty years, if the computation of an eminent writer be just, than five and forty millions!” (John Wesley, ‘Doctrine of Original Sin’, Part I, section II.8, 1757, Wesley’s Works, edited by Thomas Jackson, vol. 9, pp. 217-19)

“The inquisition, which was established in the twelfth century against the Waldenses … was now more effectually set to work. Terrible persecutions were carried on in various parts of Germany, and even in Bohemia, which continued about thirty years, and the blood of the saints was said to flow like rivers of water. The countries of Poland, Lithuania, and Hungary, were in a similar manner deluged with Protestant blood.” (Buck, Charles, A Theological Dictionary, containing Definitions of All Religious Terms; …, Philadelphia, Thomas Cowperthwait & Co., 1838, article ‘Persecution’)

“Those who were not put to death suffered imprisonment, had their houses pulled down, their lands laid waste, their property stolen, and their wives and daughters, after being ravished, sent into convents … If any fled from these cruelties, they were pursued through the woods, hunted and shot like wild beasts…At the head of the dragoons, in all the provinces of France, marched the bishops, priests, friars, &c. the clergy being ordered to keep up the cruel spirit of the military. An order was published for demolishing all protestant churches.” (Southwell, Henry, The new book of martyrs; or complete Christian martyrology. Containing an authentic and genuine historical account of the many dreadful persecutions against the Church of Christ, in all parts of the world, … Imprint London : printed for J. Cooke, [1765?] page 108-109)

“In Bohemia, by 1600, in a population of 4,000,000, 80 per cent were Protestant. When the Hapsburgs and Jesuits had done their work, 800,000 were left, all Catholics … In Austria and Hungary half the population Protestant, but under the Hapsburgs and Jesuits they were slaughtered … In Poland, by the end of the 16th century, it seemed as if Romanism was about to be entirely swept away, but here too, the Jesuits, by persecution, killed Reform. In Italy, the Pope’s own country, the Reformation was getting a real hold; but the Inquisition got busy, and hardly a trace of Protestantism was left.” (Halley’s Bible Handbook, p.798)

“The Horrors of the Inquisition, ordered and maintained by the Popes, over a period of 500 years, in which unnumbered millions were Tortured and Burned, constitute the MOST BRUTAL, BEASTLY, and DEVILISH PICTURE in all history.” (Halley’s Bible Handbook, p.732)

Protestant Reformation

The Protestant Reformation was the 16th-century religious, political, intellectual and cultural upheaval that splintered Catholic Europe, setting in place the structures and beliefs that would define the continent in the modern era. In northern and central Europe, reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin and Henry VIII challenged papal authority and questioned the Catholic Church’s ability to define Christian practice. They argued for a religious and political redistribution of power into the hands of Bible- and pamphlet-reading pastors and princes. The disruption triggered wars, persecutions and the so-called Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Church’s delayed but forceful response to the Protestants.

Dating the Reformation

Historians usually date the start of the Protestant Reformation to the 1517 publication of Martin Luther’s “95 Theses.” Its ending can be placed anywhere from the 1555 Peace of Augsburg, which allowed for the coexistence of Catholicism and Lutheranism in Germany, to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War. The key ideas of the Reformation—a call to purify the church and a belief that the Bible, not tradition, should be the sole source of spiritual authority—were not themselves novel. However, Luther and the other reformers became the first to skillfully use the power of the printing press to give their ideas a wide audience.

Did you know? No reformer was more adept than Martin Luther at using the power of the press to spread his ideas. Between 1518 and 1525, Luther published more works than the next 17 most prolific reformers combined.

 The Reformation: Germany and Lutheranism

Martin Luther (1483-1546) was an Augustinian monk and university lecturer in Wittenberg. Although he had hoped to spur renewal from within the church, in 1521 he was summoned before the Diet of Worms and excommunicated. Sheltered by Friedrich, elector of Saxony, Luther translated the Bible into German and continued his output of vernacular pamphlets.

When German peasants, inspired in part by Luther’s empowering “priesthood of all believers,” revolted in 1524, Luther sided with Germany’s princes. By the Reformation’s end, Lutheranism had become the state religion throughout much of Germany, Scandinavia and the Baltics.

 The Reformation: Switzerland and Calvinism

The Swiss Reformation began in 1519 with the sermons of Ulrich Zwingli, whose teachings largely paralleled Luther’s. In 1541 John Calvin, a French Protestant who had spent the previous decade in exile writing his “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” was invited to settle in Geneva and put his Reformed doctrine—which stressed God’s power and humanity’s predestined fate—into practice. The result was a theocratic regime of enforced, austere morality.

Calvin’s Geneva became a hotbed for Protestant exiles, and his doctrines quickly spread to Scotland, France, Transylvania and the Low Countries, where Dutch Calvinism became a religious and economic force for the next 400 years.

The Reformation: England and the “Middle Way”

In England, the Reformation began with Henry VIII’s quest for a male heir. When Pope Clement VII refused to annul Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could remarry, the English king declared in 1534 that he alone should be the final authority in matters relating to the English church. Henry dissolved England’s monasteries to confiscate their wealth and worked to place the Bible in the hands of the people. Beginning in 1536, every parish was required to have a copy.

After Henry’s death, England tilted toward Calvinist-infused Protestantism during Edward VI’s six-year reign and then endured five years of reactionary Catholicism under Mary I. In 1559 Elizabeth I took the throne and, during her 44-year reign, cast the Church of England as a “middle way” between Calvinism and Catholicism, with vernacular worship and a revised Book of Common Prayer.

 The Counter-Reformation

The Catholic Church was slow to respond systematically to the theological and publicity innovations of Luther and the other reformers. The Council of Trent, which met off and on from 1545 through 1563, articulated the Church’s answer to the problems that triggered the Reformation and to the reformers themselves.

The Catholic Church of the Counter-Reformation era grew more spiritual, more literate and more educated. New religious orders, notably the Jesuits, combined rigorous spirituality with a globally minded intellectualism, while mystics such as Teresa of Avila injected new passion into the older orders. Inquisitions, both in Spain and in Rome, were reorganized to fight the threat of Protestant heresy.


Most historians believe that Jesus (pbuh) was a real person who was born between 2 B.C. and 7 B.C. Much of what scholars know about Jesus (pbuh) comes from the New Testament of the Christian Bible.

The name of Jusus (pbuh) in the oringinal Hebrew scripture is Yehoshua as first used in Exodus 17:9. In the Aramaic scriptures Jesus (pbuh) name is Yeshua. When the the name was translated into Greek his name became Iesous. In the Latin translation the I of Iesous was replaced with a J but still pronouncing it the same way. It was only around the year 1518 when the English pronounciation of Jesus was introduced. It was common practice in different cultures to translate names to suit the culture in different writings. The problem is, when Jesus (pbuh) returns and people call him Jesus, he will not know who they are refering to as this is not his name. The question is? Who gives anyone the right to simply change or translate someones name to what they think is the meaning? If the person being addressed with the translated name do not know who you are refering to then how can you call him by that name when he does not know it as his name? Example: if a person’s name is Mr. Swart (means black in English) and he is an Afrikaner, do we refer to him as Mr Black in English? Does anyone have the right to just change a person name? Of course not, he will tell you that is not his name. In English his name will still be Mr Black.

In Islam all names are kept the same as revealed in the Quran when translating the Arabic text to English.

In order to avoid confusion we will still refer to Yehoshua as Jesus (pbuh).

According to the text, Jesus (pbuh) was born to a young Jewish virgin named Mary in the town of Bethlehem, south of Jerusalem in modern-day Palestine. Christians believe the conception was a supernatural event, with God impregnating Mary via the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:18-25 King James Version (KJV)

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

The translation of Mary:1:18 suggested that:

  1. Mary was carrying a child of the Holy Ghost “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” Christians believe in the Trinity which state that the Son is God, The Holy Ghost is God and the Father is God and that the three are actually one. The beliefe in the Trinity now creates a very sinister and perverse problem not to mention blasphemy against God. The statement that Mary was found with a child of the Holy Ghost implies that the Holy Ghost has impregnated Mary. But, Jesus the Son, God the Father and the Holy Ghost are one which means that Jesus as part of the Trinity impregnated his own mother to give birth to himselfe.
  2. An unmarried Jewish couple was traveling a long distance unaccompanied by other family members. And the woman—still only pledged in marriage—was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. If such a situation is still scandalous in the Middle East, how much more in first-century Judea?
  1. Matthew’s Gospel seems to be clearer. In the genealogy, Joseph is called the “husband of Mary,” who gave birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:16). Describing the background of their relationship, Matthew 1:18 reads, “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph.” Here Matthew uses the same Greek verb as Luke. However, after Joseph decides to divorce Mary because of her unexpected pregnancy, an angel warns him in a dream not to do so. The angel advises him to “take Mary as his wife” (Matthew 1:20). When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel commanded him: He took Mary as his wife (Matthew 1:24). Luke’s(2.5) version seemingly contradicts Matthew’s, according to present English translations.

If Joseph was seen with Mary who presented a newborn child then who would believe that Jesus (pbuh) birth was miraculous? There is simply no proof of it as Mary was seen with Joseph and the scripture would not be believable.

Many Christians say that much of the Quran was copied from the bible. Below we can see the story of Mary whom Christians say is one of many stories that was copied from the Bible but infact Allah has dedicated an entire chapter to Mary and the Quran also points out and clarifies the Mistakes of the Bible and provides a more accurate account of Jesus (pbuh) birth. When reading the verses of the Quran you will quickly see that these verses makes more sense than that presented in the bible.

This is the story of Mary ((Maryam) (Surah Maryam)) from the Quran 19:16-34;

  1. Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.
  2. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects

18, She said: “I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.”

  1. He said: “Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
  2. She said: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?”
  3. He said: “So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, ‘that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us’:It is a matter (so) decreed.”
  4. So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.
  5. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): “Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!”
  6. But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): “Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;
  7. “And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee.
  8. “So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, ‘I have vowed a fast to ((Allah)) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'”
  9. At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: “O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!
  10. “O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!”
  11. But she pointed to the babe. They said: “How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?”
  12. He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
  13. “And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;
  14. “(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
  15. “So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)”!
  16. Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.

The verses in the Quran clearly shows Mary to have retreated alone to a remote place. If Joseph was with Mary as suggested in Mathew then it would bring shame upon Mary that she was with a man who was not her husband and to make things worst, Mary was now pregnant and peope would think she has engaged in sexual intercourse with a man not yet her husband. It will also make it difficult to prove to anyone that Jesus (pbuh) was mariculously conceived by the decree of the Lord.

Mary retreeted alone and she came back alone with her new born son to show her people. It is believed in Islam that Mary remained a vergin until her death and has never married.

Ask yourself an honest question as a Christian. If your young child ask you about how Jesus was conceived, would you tell your child the story of the Bible where the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary or the story of Mary in the Quran?   

Background and early Iife of Jesus (pbuh) (according to Biography.com)

Most of Jesus’s (pbuh) life is told through the four Gospels of the New Testament Bible, known as the Canonical gospels, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Christians believe that these Gospels are not biographies in the modern sense but accounts with allegorical intent. They are written to engender faith in Jesus as the Messiah and the incarnation of God, who came to teach, suffer and die for people’s sins.

Jesus (pbuh) was born circa 6 B.C. in Bethlehem. His mother, Mary, was a virgin who was betrothed to Joseph, a carpenter. Christians believe Jesus was born through Immaculate Conception. His lineage can be traced back to the house of David. According to the Gospel of Matthew (2:1), Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, who upon hearing of his birth felt threatened and tried to kill Jesus (pbuh) by ordering all of Bethlehem’s male children under age two to be killed. But Joseph was warned by an angel and took Mary and the child to Egypt until Herod’s death, where upon he brought the family back and settled in the town of Nazareth, in Galilee.

There is very little written about Jesus’s (pbuh) early life. The Gospel of Luke (2:41-52) recounts that a 12-year-old Jesus had accompanied his parents on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and became separated. He was found several days later in a temple, discussing affairs with some of Jerusalem’s elders. Throughout the New Testament, there are trace references of Jesus working as a carpenter while a young adult. It is believed that he began his ministry at age 30 when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

After baptism, Jesus (pbuh) went into the Judean desert to fast and meditate for 40 days and nights. The Temptation of Christ is chronicled in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (known as the Synoptic Gospels). The Devil appeared and tempted Jesus three times, once to turn stone to bread, once to cast himself off a mountain where angels would save him, and once to offer him all the kingdoms of the world. All three times, Jesus (pbuh) rejected the Devil’s temptation and sent him off.

Jesus’s (pbuh) Ministry

The Gospel of Luke (Luke 3:23) states that Jesus (pbuh) was “about 30 years of age” at the start of his ministry. According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ (pbuh) ministry lasted only 3 years. The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers (with other festivals in between). This suggests a three-year ministry. Jesus (pbuh) returned to Galilee and made trips to neighboring villages. During this time, several people became his disciples. One of these was Mary Magdalene, who is first mentioned the Gospel of Luke (16:9) and later in all four gospels at the crucifixion. Though not mentioned in the context of the “12 disciples,” she is considered to have been involved in Jesus’s (pbuh) ministry from the beginning to his death and after. According to the gospels of Mark and John, Jesus (pbuh) appeared to Magdalene first after his resurrection.

According to the Gospel of John (2:1-11), as Jesus (pbuh) was beginning his ministry, he and his disciples traveled with his mother, Mary, to a wedding at Cana in Galilee. The wedding host had run out of wine and Jesus’s (pbuh) mother came to him for help. At first, Jesus refused to intervene, but then he relented and asked a servant to bring him large jars filled with water. It is believed by Christians that Jesus (pbuh) turned the water into a wine of higher quality than any served during the wedding. John’s gospel depicts the event as the first sign of Jesus’s (pbuh) glory and his disciples’ belief in him.

After the wedding, Jesus (pbuh), his mother Mary and his disciples traveled to Jerusalem for Passover. At the temple, they saw moneychangers and merchants selling wares. In a rare display of anger, Jesus overturned the tables and, with a whip made of cords, drove them out, declaring that his Father’s house is not a house for merchants.

The Synoptic Gospels chronicle Jesus as he traveled through Judea and Galilee, using parables and miracles to explain how the prophecies were being fulfilled and that the kingdom of God was near. As word spread of Jesus’s teaching and healing the sick and diseased, more people began to follow him. At one point, Jesus came to a level area and was joined by a great number of people. There, at the Sermon on the Mount, he presented several discourses, known as the Beatitudes, which encapsulate many of the spiritual teachings of love, humility and compassion.

As Jesus (pbuh) continued preaching about the kingdom of God, the crowds grew larger and began to proclaim him as the son of David and as the Messiah. The Pharisees heard of this and publicly challenged Jesu (pbuh) s, accusing him of having the power of Satan. He defended his actions with a parable, then questioned their logic and told them such thinking denied the power of God, which only further hardened their resolve to work against him.

Near the city of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus talked with his disciples. According to the gospels of Matthew (16:13), Mark (8:27) and Luke (9:18), he asked, “Who do you say that I am?” The question confused them, and only Peter responded, saying, “God’s Messiah.” Jesus (pbuh) blessed Peter, declared the proclamation was a divine revelation from God. Jesus then proclaimed Peter to be the leader of the church. Jesus (pbuh) then warned his disciples of the Pharisees’ conspiracy against him and of his fate to suffer and be killed, only to rise from the dead on the third day.

Less than a week later, Jesus took three of his disciples to a high mountain where they could pray alone. According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ (pbuh) face began shining like the sun and his entire body glowed with a white light. Then, the prophets Elijah and Moses appeared, and Jesus talked to them. A bright cloud emerged around them, and a voice said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” This event, known as the Transfiguration, is a pivotal moment in Christian theology. It supports the identity of Jesus as the Messiah.

Jesus (pbuh) arrived in Jerusalem, the week before the holiday of Passover, riding on a donkey. Great numbers of people took palm branches and greeted him at the city’s entry. They praised him as the Son of David. The priests and Pharisees, fearful of the growing public adulation, felt he must be stopped.

All four Gospels describe Jesus’ (pbuh) final week in Jerusalem. During this time, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, confronted moneychangers and merchants in the temple, and debated with the high priests who questioned Jesus’ (pbuh) authority. He told his disciples about the coming days and that Jerusalem’s temple would be destroyed. Meanwhile, the chief priests and elders met with high priest Caiaphas, and set plans in motion to arrest Jesus (pbuh). One of the disciples, Judas, met with the chief priests and told them how he would deliver Jesus (pbuh) to them. They agreed to pay him 30 pieces of silver.

The Last Supper

Jesus (pbuh) and his 12 disciples met for the Passover meal, and he gave them his final words of faith. He also foretold of his betrayal by one of the disciples and privately let Judas know it was he. Jesus told Peter that before a rooster crowed the next morning, he would have denied knowing Jesus (pbuh) three times. At the end of the meal, Jesus (pbuh) instituted the Eucharist, which in the Christian religion, signifies the covenant between God and humans.

After the Last Supper, Jesus (pbuh) and his disciples went to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. Jesus (pbuh) asked God if this cup (his suffering and death) might pass by him. He implored a group of his disciples to pray with him, but they kept falling asleep. Then the time had come. Soldiers and officials appeared, and Judas was with them. He gave Jesus (pbuh) a kiss on the cheek to identify him and the soldiers arrested Jesus (pbuh). One disciple tried to resist the arrest, brandished his sword and cut the ear off one of the soldiers. But Jesus  (pbuh) admonished him and healed the soldier’s wound.

After his arrest, many of the disciples went into hiding. Jesus (pbuh) was taken to the high priest and interrogated. He was hit and spat upon for not responding. Meanwhile, Peter had followed Jesus to the high priests’ court. As he hid in the shadows, three house servants asked if he was one of Jesus’ disciples and each time he denied it. After each denial, a rooster crowed. Then Jesus (pbuh) was led out of the house and looked directly at Peter. Peter remembered how Jesus (pbuh) had told him he would deny him and he wept bitterly. Judas, who was watching from a distance, became distraught by his betrayal of Jesus (pbuh) and attempted to return the 30 pieces of silver. The priests told him his guilt was his own. He threw the coins into the temple and later hanged himself.

The Crucifixion Accroding to Christian Belief

The next day, Jesus was taken to the high court where he was mocked, beaten and condemned for claiming to be the Messiah of God. He was brought before Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea. The priests accused Jesus (pbuh) of claiming to be the king of the Jews and asked that he be condemned to death. At first Pilate tried to pass Jesus off to King Herod, but he was brought back, and Pilate told the Jewish priests he could find no fault with Jesus (pbuh). The priests reminded him that anyone who claimed to be a king speaks against Caesar. Pilate publicly washed his hands of responsibility, yet ordered the crucifixion in response to the demands of the crowd. The Roman soldiers whipped and beat Jesus (pbuh), placed a crown of thorns on his head and then led him off to Mount Calvary.

Jesus was crucified with two thieves, one at his left and the other at his right. Above his head was the charge against him, “King of the Jews.” At his feet were his mother, Mary, and Mary Magdalene. The Gospels describe various events that occurred during the last three hours of his life, including the taunting by the soldiers and the crowd, Jesus’ (pbuh) agony and outbursts, and his final words. While Jesus was on the cross, the sky darkened, and immediately upon his death, an earthquake erupted, tearing the temple’s curtain from top to bottom. A soldier confirmed his death by sticking a spear into his side, which produced only water. He was taken down from the cross and buried in a nearby tomb.

Risen from the Dead According to Christian Belief

Three days after his death, Jesus’ (pbuh) tomb was found empty. He had risen from the dead and appeared first to Mary Magdalene and then to his mother Mary. They both informed the disciples, who were in hiding, and later, Jesus (pbuh) appeared to them and told them not to be afraid. During this brief time, he beseeched his disciples to go into the world and preach the gospel to all humanity. After 40 days, Jesus led his disciples to Mount Olivet, east of Jerusalem. Jesus (pbuh) spoke his final words to them, saying that they would receive the power of the Holy Spirit, before he was taken upward on a cloud and ascended into heaven.

This is the biography of Jesus life so told by Historians.

Taking a broad look at what Christians believe, what the churches teach and what the Bible teach are not always the same thing.

  • The Churche teaches the Trinity, that God is made up of the Father, the son and the Holy Ghost, three distinct person but One God. The Bible and Jesus himself teaches that God is One and no ware in the bible can the word trinity be found. You will not find one single verse that says the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one. The closes verse that was previous found was 1Johon 5:7 which read: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. This verse word Son was found to be fabrication and is not found in the original scripture. The verse was subsequently changed to: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
  • The Church teaches that Jesus (pbuh) is the begotten Son of God and that Jesus (pbuh) is God. No ware in the bible does Jesus (pbuh) claim that he is God and that he himself says that “I am God or that he says worship me” Neither does Jesus (pbuh) state anyware in the bible that he is the “begotten” son of God. The word begotten was also found to be fabrication and was removed. The verses now show “the only son” and not begotten Son.
  • The Church teaches that good works do not make us acceptable to God. In other words, a person can live to a high moral standard, give money to feed the poor, go to church, and serve their neighbors, and yet not be a follower of Christ or “Christian.” Jesus (pbuh) has never made such an aquisation.
  • The Church teaches that God has sent his only begotten son to die for our sins. Jesus (pbuh) does not claim this at all. There is not a single bible verse that says that Jesus himself says that he came to die for peoples sins.
  • What we find in many cases that the church and Christians mis-quote scripture to suit their own agenda. Christians often gives their own explanations to prove their point but provide no ividance or they mis-quote verses. This will be proven as we proceed.
  • The Church also teach that the bible is the word of God breathed which Christians believed to be true with all their heart but yet much of the Bible cannot be proven to be the word of God.

Christianity today lay certain claims which we will be discussing

These claims are contested by both Islam and Judaism and we will be investigating these claims in detail to see if they are true or false. We will only be looking into certain major claims which are as followers:

  1. The Trinity –
    • Jesus (pbuh) the Son of God
    • Jesus (Phuh) is claimed to be God
    • The Holy Spirit
  2. The Original Sin
  3. Jesus died for our Sins – the crusifixion
  4. The Bible being the word of God
    • Contridictions in the Bible
    • Errors found in the Bible
  5. Was the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prophesized in the Bible?

For any of the above to be true we must go directly to the source of information found in the Bible namely the messengers / prophets of God who was appointment by God and who spoke God’s words. They were (Old Testament) David (pbuh), Moses (pbuh) and (New Testament) Jesus (pbuh). Like we did with the Quran we need to establish the following:

  1. Was all the inforation found in the Bible spoken directly by messengers and or prophets of God?
  2. Did they authenticate these writings?
  3. Was it written in their lifetime?
  4. Who were the scribes, are their names given?
  5. Did the messengers closesist companions / decsiples confirm it?
  6. Where these followers eyewitnesses and if other eyewitnesses where used as a source of information are there names given?


The first five books – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, book of Numbers and Deuteronomy – reached their present form in the Persian period (538–332 BC), and their authors were the elite of exilic returnees who controlled the Temple at that time.[1] The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings follow, forming a history of Israel from the Conquest of Canaan to the Siege of Jerusalem c. 587 BC. There is a broad consensus among scholars that these originated as a single work (the so-called “Deuteronomistic history”) during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BC.[2]

The two Books of Chronicles cover much the same material as the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic history and probably date from the 4th century BC.[3] Chronicles, and Ezra–Nehemiah, were probably finished during the 3rd century BC.[4] Catholic and Orthodox Old Testaments contain two (Catholic Old Testament) to four (Orthodox) Books of Maccabees, written in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC.

These history books make up around half the total content of the Old Testament. Of the remainder, the books of the various prophets – Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve “minor prophets” – were written between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, with the exceptions of Jonah and Daniel, which were written much later.[5] The “wisdom” books – Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Song of Solomon – have various dates: Proverbs possibly was completed by the Hellenistic time (332–198 BC), though containing much older material as well; Job completed by the 6th century BC; Ecclesiastes by the 3rd century BC.[6]

The majority of Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian captivity (c. 6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, and that it was completed with final revisions during the post- Exilic period (c. 5th century BCE).[7][8][9]

The Below table will show the variances in the number of books in the different Bibles.The disputed books, included in one canon but not in others, are often called the Biblical apocrypha, a term that is sometimes used specifically to describe the books in the Catholic and Orthodox canons that are absent from the Jewish Masoretic Text and most modern Protestant Bibles. Catholics, following the Canon of Trent (1546), describe these books as deuterocanonical, while Greek Orthodox Christians, following the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), use the traditional name of anagignoskomena, meaning “that which is to be read.” They are present in a few historic Protestant versions; the German Luther Bible included such books, as did the English 1611 King James Version.

Hebrew Bible
(24 books)

Old Testament
(39 books)

Old Testament
(46 books)

Eastern Orthodox
Old Testament
(49 books)

Original language (Hebrew)

Christians most often say that the Bible writters was inspired or moved by the Holy Spirit when writing and compiling the Bible and hence it is the word of God breathed but yet we find different Bilbles having different amount of books. Therefore, we find that scholars refute the claim as the Holy Spirit will not inspire the composing of a different number of books in each case.

What we know about Jesus (pbuh) is contained in the 4 Gospels.

We read from history and according to Christian belief, Jesus (pbuh) was crucified and died on the cross at the age of 33. (33AD). We will use this as the timeline to determine the age of the scriptures.


The four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John comprise the first four books of the New Testament of the Bible and were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[1][2][3] All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[4] They are a subset of the genre of ancient biography, but ancient biographies should not be confused with modern ones,[5] and often included propaganda and kerygma (preaching);[6] yet while there is no guarantee that the events which they describe are historically accurate, in the quest for the historical Jesus (pbuh), scholars believe that it is possible to differentiate Jesus’ (pbuh) own views from those of his later followers.[7][8]

Many non-canonical gospels were also written, all later than the four canonical gospels, and like them advocating the particular theological views of their various authors.[9][10]

The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[11] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[12] and John AD 90–110.[13] Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses;[14] a few conservative scholars defend the traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.[15] Like the rest of the New Testament, they were written in Greek.[16]

Historical Realiability of the Gospels

The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. While all four canonical gospels contain some sayings and events which may meet one or more of the five criteria for historical reliability used in biblical studies,[Notes 1] the assessment and evaluation of these elements is a matter of ongoing debate.[Notes 2][17][18][19][20] Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that a human Jesus existed,[21][22][23][24] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[25] and the only two events subject to “almost universal assent” are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[26][27][28] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[29][30][31][32][33][34]

According to the majority viewpoint, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, collectively referred to as the Synoptic Gospels, are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded.[35][36][37] The fourth gospel, the Gospel of John, differs greatly from the first three gospels. Historians often study the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles when studying the reliability of the gospels, as Acts was seemingly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke.

Among scholars, a growing majority considers the Gospels to be in the genre of Ancient Greco-Roman biographies,[38][39] the same genre as Plutarch’s Life of Alexander and Life of Caesar. Typically, ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history.[38] Some biblical scholars view Luke’s Gospel as ancient history rather than ancient biography.[39]

Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate, rather than authenticate, reliable information from possible inventions, exaggerations, and alterations.[35] Since there are more than 15,000 New Testament manuscripts which present hundreds of thousands of textual variants,[40] scholars use textual criticism to determine which gospel variants could theoretically be taken as ‘original’. To answer this question, scholars have to ask who wrote the gospels, when they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them,[41] what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were, and how far removed in time the sources were from the stories they narrate, or if they were altered later. Scholars can also look into the internal evidence of the documents, to see if, for example, the document is misquoting texts from the Hebrew Tanakh, is making claims about geography that were incorrect or if the author appears to be hiding information. Finally, scholars turn to external sources, including the testimony of early church leaders, writers outside the church (mainly Jewish and Greco-Roman historians) who would have been more likely to have criticized the early churches, and to archaeological evidence.

Matthew and Luke depend on three shared written Greek sources: the gospel of Mark; a “sayings of Jesus” collection called Q; and the Jewish scriptures in a Greek translation called the Septuagint.[42] They also contain some material unique to each: this is called the “M” material for Matthew and “L” for Luke.[43]

Scope and genre

In evaluating the historical reliability of the Gospels, scholars consider authorship and date of composition,[44] intention and genre,[41] gospel sources and oral tradition,[45][46] textual criticism,[31] and historical authenticity of specific sayings and narrative events.[44]

“Gospel” or “gospels” is the standard term for the four New Testament books carrying the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, each telling of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (including his dealings with John the Baptist, his trial and execution, the discovery of his empty tomb, and, at least for three of them, his appearances to his disciples following his death.)[48]

The genre of the gospels is essential in understanding the intentions of the authors regarding the historical value of the texts. New Testament scholar Graham Stanton states that “the gospels are now widely considered to be a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of biographies.”[49] Charles H. Talbert agrees that the gospels should be grouped with the Graeco-Roman biographies, but adds that such biographies included an element of mythology, and that the synoptic gospels also included elements of mythology.[18] E.P. Sanders states that “these Gospels were written with the intention of glorifying Jesus and are not strictly biographical in nature.”[35] Ingrid Maisch and Anton Vögtle writing for Karl Rahner in his encyclopedia of theological terms indicate that the gospels were written primarily as theological, not historical items.[50] Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis notes that “we must conclude, then, that the genre of the Gospel is not that of pure ‘history’; but neither is it that of myth, fairy tale, or legend. In fact, ‘gospel’ constitutes a genre all its own, a surprising novelty in the literature of the ancient world.”[19]

Scholars tend to consider Luke’s works (Luke-Acts) to be closer in genre to “pure” history,[20][20][51] although they also note that “This is not to say that he [Luke] was always reliably informed, or that – any more than modern historians – he always presented a severely factual account of events.”[20] New Testament scholar, James D.G. Dunn believes that “the earliest tradents within the Christian churches [were] preservers more than innovators…seeking to transmit, retell, explain, interpret, elaborate, but not create de novo…Through the main body of the Synoptic tradition, I believe, we have in most cases direct access to the teaching and ministry of Jesus as it was remembered from the beginning of the transmission process (which often predates Easter) and so fairly direct access to the ministry and teaching of Jesus through the eyes and ears of those who went about with him.”[52] Nevertheless, David Jenkins, a former Anglican Bishop of Durham and university professor, has stated that “Certainly not! There is absolutely no certainty in the New Testament about anything of importance.”[53]

From oral traditions to written gospels

In the immediate aftermath of Jesus’ death his followers expected him to return at any moment, certainly within their own lifetimes, and in consequence there was little motivation to write anything down for future generations; but as eyewitnesses began to die, and as the missionary needs of the church grew, there was an increasing demand and need for written versions of the founder’s life and teachings.[55] The stages of this process can be summarised as follows:[56]

  1. Oral traditions – stories and sayings passed on largely as separate self-contained units, not in any order;
  2. Written collections of miracle stories, parables, sayings, etc., with oral tradition continuing alongside these;
  3. Written proto-gospels preceding and serving as sources for the gospels;
  4. Canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Lukeand John composed from these sources.

The New Testament preserves signs of these oral traditions and early documents:[57] for example, parallel passages between Matthew, Mark and Luke on one hand and the Pauline epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews on the other are typically explained by assuming that all were relying on a shared oral tradition,[58] and the dedicatory preface of Luke refers to previous written accounts of the life of Jesus.[59] The early traditions were fluid and subject to alteration, sometimes transmitted by those who had known Jesus personally, but more often by wandering prophets and teachers like the Apostle Paul, who knew him through visionary experiences.[60] The early prophets and leaders of local Christian communities and their followers were more focused on the Kingdom of God than on the life of Jesus: Paul for example, says very little about him beyond that he was “born of a woman” (meaning that he was a man and not a phantom), that he was a Jew, and that he suffered, died, and was resurrected: what mattered for Paul was not Jesus’s teachings or the details of his death and resurrection, but the kingdom.[61]

The four canonical gospels were first mentioned between 120 and 150 by Justin Martyr, who lived c.100-185.[62] Justin had no titles for them and simply called them the “memoirs of the Apostles”, but around 185 Iraneus, a bishop of Lyon who lived c.130–c.202, attributed them to: 1) Matthew, an apostle who followed Jesus in his earthly career; 2) Mark, who while himself not a disciple was the companion of Peter, who was; 3) Luke, the companion of Paul, the author of the Pauline epistles; and 4) John, who like Matthew was an apostle who had known Jesus.[62] Christian apologists and most lay Christians assume on the basis of 4th century Church teaching that the gospels were written by the Evangelists c.50-65 AD, but the scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD.[63][62]

Role of eyewitnesses

The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts;[64] instead, the four were written in and for various Christian communities for the purpose of proclamation, and as a result they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.[57] This view has been challenged in recent years, Richard Bauckham, for example, arguing that each gospel is the work of a single author writing from personal knowledge of the career of Jesus, with the differences between them arising from the gospel-writers’ attempts to interpret Jesus and his mission.[65] This differs markedly from the majority view, in which the traditions behind each gospel were formed by communities (and therefore fluid), and also from that of another scholar, James Dunn, who allowed eyewitnesses an important role in formulating the traditions while still keeping the various Christian communities.[67] At stake was (or is) the scholarly process called form criticism, which looks at the social situation (the sitz im leben, place in life) in which texts and traditions arise and are formed: for Bauckham and others, community is irrelevant, because the tradition is derived from the eyewitnesses and carefully guarded.[67]

Bauckham’s thesis has clear implications for the reliability of the gospels: they can be trusted because they are based on eyewitness testimony.[68] Nevertheless, evangelical scholar Craig Blomberg says that the main finding of source criticism, namely an initial period of oral tradition, is well founded.[69] Luke in the prologue to his gospel (Luke 1:1–4) seems to bear out the findings of critical scholarship regarding the formation of the gospels: sources consisting of “things…handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses” (oral tradition), written sources by the “many [who] have undertaken to draw up an account” (for Luke, including at least Mark and possibly Matthew), and those like Luke himself who wished to write his own account, corresponding to the redaction of theologically-motivated gospels.[69]

Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic gospels because they share many stories (the technical term is pericopes), sometimes even identical wording; finding an explanation for their similarities, and also their differences, is known as the synoptic problem,[70] and most scholars believe that the best solution to the problem is that Mark was the first gospel to be written and served as the source for the other two[71] – alternative theories exist, but create more problems than they solve.[43]

Matthew and Luke also share a large amount of material which is not found in Mark; this appears in the same order in each, although not always in the same contexts, leading scholars to the conclusion that in addition to Mark they also shared a lost source called the Q document (from “Quelle”, the German word for “source);[43] its existence and use alongside Mark by the authors of Matthew and Luke seems the most convincing solution to the synoptic problem.[72]

Matthew and Luke contain some material unique to each, called the M source (or Special Matthew) for Matthew and the L source (Special Luke) for Luke.[43] The pericopes from M and L include some of the best-known stories in the gospels, such as the stories of the birth of Christ and the parables of the good Samaritan and the “pearl of great price”.[73]

The Hebrew scriptures were also an important source for all three, and for John.[74] Direct quotations number 27 in Mark, 54 in Matthew, 24 in Luke, and 14 in John, and the influence of the scriptures is vastly increased when allusions and echoes are included.[75] 

The synoptics: Matthew, Mark and Luke

Half of Mark’s gospel, for example, is made up of allusions to and citations of the scriptures, which he uses to structure his narrative and to present his understanding of the ministry, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus (for example, the final cry from the cross, “My Lord, my Lord, why have you you forsaken me?” is a quotation from psalm 22:2: “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?”[76] Matthew contains all Mark’s quotations and introduces around 30 more, sometimes in the mouth of Jesus, sometimes as his own commentary on the narrative,[77] and Luke makes allusions to all but three of the Old Testament books.[78]


Tradition holds that the gospel was written by Mark the Evangelist, St. Peter’s interpreter, but its reliance on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, makes this unlikely.[79] Most scholars believe it was written shortly before or after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70,[80] and internal evidence suggests that it probably originated in Syria or Palestine among a Christian community consisting at least partly of non-Jews who spoke Greek rather than Aramaic and did not understand Jewish culture.[81]

Scholars since the 19th century have regarded Mark as the first of the gospels (called the theory of Markan priority).[Notes 3] Markan priority led to the belief that Mark must be the most reliable of the gospels, but today there is a large consensus that the author of Mark was not intending to write history.[82] Mark preserves memories of real people (including the disciples), places and circumstances, but it is based on previously existing traditions which have been selected and arranged by the author to express his understanding of the significance of Jesus.[81]

Mark is a counter-narrative to the myth of Imperial rule crafted by Vespasian.[83] In 1901 William Wrede demonstrated that Mark was not a simple historical account of the life of Jesus but a work of theology compiled by an author who was a creative artist.[84] There has been little interest in his sources until recently, but candidates include the Elijah-Elisha narrative in the Book of Kings and the Pauline letters, notably 1 Corinthians, and even Homer.[85]

Maurice Casey believes that Mark’s gospel contains traces of literal translations of Aramaic sources, and that this implies, in some cases, a sitz im leben in the lifetime of Jesus and a very early date for the gospel.[86]

Matthew and Luke

The consensus of scholars dates Matthew and Luke to 80-90 AD.[79][Notes 4] The scholarly consensus is that Matthew originated in a “Matthean community” in Antioch (a city in Syria);[80] Luke was written in a large city west of Palestine,[81] for an educated Greek-speaking audience.[82] Scholars doubt that the authors were the evangelists Matthew and Luke: it seems unlikely, for example, that Matthew would rely so heavily on Mark if its author had been an eyewitness to Jesus’s ministry,[83] or that the Acts of Apostles (by the same author as the gospel of Luke) would so frequently contradict the Pauline letters if its author had been Paul’s companion.[81][84] Instead, the two took for their sources the gospel of Mark (606 of Matthew’s verses are taken from Mark, 320 of Luke’s),[85] the Q source, and the “special” material of M and L.

The consensus of scholars dates Matthew and Luke to 80-90 AD.[87][Notes 4] The scholarly consensus is that Matthew originated in a “Matthean community” in Antioch (a city in Syria);[88] Luke was written in a large city west of Palestine,[89] for an educated Greek-speaking audience.[90] Scholars doubt that the authors were the evangelists Matthew and Luke: it seems unlikely, for example, that Matthew would rely so heavily on Mark if its author had been an eyewitness to Jesus’s ministry,[91] or that the Acts of Apostles (by the same author as the gospel of Luke) would so frequently contradict the Pauline letters if its author had been Paul’s companion.[89][92] Instead, the two took for their sources the gospel of Mark (606 of Matthew’s verses are taken from Mark, 320 of Luke’s),[93] the Q source, and the “special” material of M and L.

Q (Quelle)

Mark has 661 verses, 637 of which are reproduced in Matthew and/or Luke.[93] Matthew and Luke share a further 200 verses (roughly) which are not taken from Mark: this is called the Q source.[93][Notes 5] Q is usually dated about a decade earlier than Mark;[94] some scholars argue that it was a single written document, others for multiple documents, and others that there was a core written Q accompanied by an oral tradition.[95] Despite ongoing debate over its exact content – some Q materials in Matthew and Luke are identical word for word, but others are substantially different – there is general consensus about the passages that belong to it.[96] It has no passion story and no resurrection, but the Aramaic form of some sayings suggests that its nucleus reaches back to the earliest Palestinian community and even the lifetime of Jesus.[97]

Identifying the community of Q and the circumstances in which it was created and used is difficult, but it probably originated in Galilee, in a movement in opposition to the leadership in Jerusalem, as a set of short speeches relating to specific occasions such as covenant-renewal, the commissioning of missionaries, prayers for the Kingdom of God, and calling down divine judgement on their enemies the Pharisees.[98] A large majority of scholars consider it to be among the oldest and most reliable material in the gospels.[99]

M and L (Special Matthew and Special Luke)

The premise that Matthew and Luke used sources in addition to Mark and Q is fairly widely accepted, although many details are disputed, including whether they were written or oral, or the invention of the gospel authors, or Q material that happened to be used by only one gospel, or a combination of these.[100]


The Gospel of John speaks of an unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” as the source of its traditions, but does not say specifically that he is its author;[101] Christian tradition identifies him as the John the Apostle, but the majority of modern scholars have abandoned this or hold it only tenuously.[102][Notes 6] Most scholars believe it was written c. 90–110 AD,[103] at Ephesus in Anatolia (although other possibilities are Antioch, Northern Syria, Palestine and Alexandria)[104] and went through two or three “editions” before reaching its final form, although a minority continue to support unitary composition.[105][103]

The fact that the format of John follows that set by Mark need not imply that the author knew Mark, for there are no identical or almost-identical passages; rather, this was most probably the accepted shape for a gospel by the time John was written.[106] Nevertheless, John’s discourses are full of synoptic-like material: some scholars think this indicates that the author knew the synoptics, although others believe it points instead to a shared base in the oral tradition.[107] John nevertheless differs radically from them:[108][109]



Begin with the virgin conception (virgin birth – Matthew and Luke only)

Begin with incarnation of the preexistent Logos/Word

Jesus visits Jerusalem only in the last week of his life; only one Passover

Jesus active in Judea for much of his mission; three Passovers

Jesus speaks little of himself

Jesus speaks much of himself, notably in the “I am” statements

Jesus calls for faith in God

Jesus calls for faith in himself

Jesus’s central theme is the Kingdom of God

Jesus rarely mentions the Kingdom of God

Jesus preaches repentance and forgiveness

Jesus never mentions repentance and forgiveness only once (John 20:23)

Jesus speaks in aphorisms and parables

Jesus speaks in lengthy dialogues

Jesus rarely mentions eternal life

Jesus regularly mentions eternal life

Jesus shows strong concern for the poor and sinners

Jesus shows little concern for the poor and sinners

Jesus frequently exorcises demons

Jesus never exorcises demons

Textual Variants in the New Testament

Textual criticism deals with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations (such as including non-authentic additions).[110] In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as additions of material, centuries after the gospel was written. These are called interpolations. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses, words and phrases being left out or marked as not original.

For example, there are a number of Bible verses in the New Testament that are present in the King James Version (KJV) but are absent from most modern Bible translations. Most modern textual scholars consider these verses interpolations (exceptions include advocates of the Byzantine or Majority text). The verse numbers have been reserved, but without any text, so as to preserve the traditional numbering of the remaining verses. The Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman notes that many current verses were not part of the original text of the New Testament. “These scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries,” he adds. “And because the King James Bible is based on later manuscripts, such verses “became part of the Bible tradition in English-speaking lands.”[111] He notes, however, that modern English translations, such as the New International Version, were written by using a more appropriate textual method.[112]

Most modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate passages that have disputed source documents. Bible Commentaries also discuss these, sometimes in great detail. While many variations have been discovered between early copies of biblical texts, most of these are variations in spelling, punctuation, or grammar. Also, many of these variants are so particular to the Greek language that they would not appear in translations into other languages.[113]

Three of the most important interpolations are the last verses of the Gospel of Mark[106][107][108] the story of the adulterous woman in the Gospel of John,[114][115][116] and the explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John to have been a later addition.[120][121]

The New Testament has been preserved in more than 5,800 fragmentary Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian. Not all biblical manuscripts come from orthodox Christian writers. For example, the Gnostic writings of Valentinus come from the 2nd century AD, and these Christians were regarded as heretics by the mainstream church.[122] The sheer number of witnesses presents unique difficulties, although it gives scholars a better idea of how close modern bibles are to the original versions.[122] Bruce Metzger says “The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like. The only way they’d agree would be where they went back genealogically in a family tree that represents the descent of the manuscripts.[113]

In “The Text Of The New Testament“, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover and Nestle-Aland), concluding that 62.9%, or 4,999/7,947, are in agreement.[123] They concluded, “Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text, the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (e.g., the spelling of names). Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. … In the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation the agreement is less, while in the letters it is much greater”[123] Per Aland and Aland, the total consistency achieved in the Gospel of Matthew was 60% (642 verses out of 1,071), the total consistency achieved in the Gospel of Mark was 45% (306 verses out of 678), the total consistency achieved in the Gospel of Luke was 57% (658 verses out of 1,151), and the total consistency achieved in the Gospel of John was 52% (450 verses out of 869).[123] Almost all of these variants are minor, and most of them are spelling or grammatical errors. Almost all can be explained by some type of unintentional scribal mistake, such as poor eyesight. Very few variants are contested among scholars, and few or none of the contested variants carry any theological significance. Modern biblical translations reflect this scholarly consensus where the variants exist, while the disputed variants are typically noted as such in the translations.[124]

A quantitative study on the stability of the New Testament compared early manuscripts to later manuscripts, up to the Middle Ages, with the Byzantine manuscripts, and concluded that the text had more than 90% stability over this time period.[125] It has been estimated that only 0.1% to 0.2% of the New Testament variants impact the meaning of the texts in any significant fashion.[125]

The parable of the Good Samaritan appears to be an invention by the author of Luke.[126]

Other Varients

Authors such as Raymond Brown point out that the Gospels contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details.[127] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders state that: “on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could”.[128]

Preexistence of Jesus

The gospel of John begins with a statement that the Logos existed from the beginning, and was God. There is however no reference of Jesus being with God in he Beginning in the other Gospels. The creation story seems mostly likely to be copied from Genesis and the writer included Jesus in the beginning and then claiming Jesus to be God.

Genealogy, nativity and childhood of Jesus

The genealogy, birth and childhood of Jesus appear only in Matthew and Luke, and are ascribed to Special Matthew and Special Luke. Only Luke and Matthew have nativity narratives. Modern critical scholars consider both to be non-historical.[129][130][131] Many biblical scholars view the discussion of historicity as secondary, given that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather than historical accounts.[132][133][134][135] The nativity narratives found in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 1:1–17) and the Gospel of Luke (Luke 3:23–38) give a genealogy of Jesus, but the names, and even the number of generations, differ between the two. Some authors have suggested that the differences are the result of two different lineages, Matthew’s from King David’s son, Solomon, to Jacob, father of Joseph, and Luke’s from King David’s other son, Nathan, to Heli, father of Mary and father-in-law of Joseph.[136] However, Geza Vermes argues that Luke makes no mention of Mary, and questions what purpose a maternal genealogy would serve in a Jewish setting.[137]

Dating the birth of Jesus

Both Luke and Matthew date Jesus’ birth to within the rule of King Herod the Great, who died in 4BC.[138][139] However the Gospel of Luke also dates the birth ten years after Herod’s death, during the census of Quirinius in 6 AD described by the historian Josephus.[138] Raymond E. Brown notes that “most critical scholars acknowledge a confusion and misdating on Luke’s part.”[140]

Teachings of Jesus

Only a few of the parables can be attributed with confidence to the historical Jesus.[141] Most of them come from the M and L sources (rather than Mark or Q), but marked by the special language and theology of each of those gospels; this leads to the conclusion that they are not the original words of Jesus, but have been reworked by the gospel-authors.[142]

Passion narrative

The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem recalls the entry of Judas Maccabeus; the Last Supper is mentioned only in the synoptics.[143]

Death of Judas

There is a contradiction regarding the death of Judas Iscariot with the account of his death in Acts differing from the one given in Matthew.[144] In Matthew 27:3–8, Judas returns the bribe he has been given for handing over Jesus, throwing the money into the temple before he hangs himself. The temple priests, unwilling to return the defiled money to the treasury,[145] use it instead to buy a field known as the Potter’s Field, as a plot in which to bury strangers. In Acts 1:18 Peter says that Judas used the bribe money to buy the field himself, and his death is attributed to injuries from having fallen in this field. Other scholars state that the contradictory stories can be reconciled.[146][147]



The New Testament books are written.


Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’ Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul.


The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter. Each “city-church” (region) has its own Canon, which is a list of books approved for reading at Mass (Liturgy)


The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D. (Arianism starts introducing spurious books)


Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order. 


The Council of Hippo,  which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.


The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …

AD 405

Innocent sends a response to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse

Qui vero libri recipiantur in canone sanctarum scripturarum brevis annexus ostendit. Haec sunt ergo quae desiderata moneri voluisti: Moysi libri quinque, id est Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, necnon et Jesu Nave, et Judicum, et Regnorum libri quatuor simul et Ruth, prophetarum libri sexdecim, Salomonis libri quinque, Psalterium. Item historiarum Job liber unus, Tobiae unus, Hester unus, Judith unus, Machabeorum duo, Esdrae duo, Paralipomenon duo. Item Novi Testamenti: Evangeliorum libri iiii, Pauli Apostoli Epistolae xiiii: Epistolae Iohannis tres: Epistolae Petri duae: Epistola Judae: Epistola Jacobi: Actus Apostolorum: Apocalypsis Johannis. Caetera autem quae vel sub nomine Matthiae, sive Jacobi minoris, vel sub nomine Petri et Johannis, quae a quodam Leucio scripta sunt, vel sub nomine Andreae, quae a Nexocharide, et Leonida philosophis, vel sub nomine Thomae, et si qua sunt talia, non solum repudianda verum etiam noveris esse damnanda.

Which books really are received in the canon, this brief addition shows. These therefore are the things of which you desired to be informed. Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings 2 together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon, 3 and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra, 4 two of Chronicles. And of the New Testament: of the Gospels four. Epistles of the apostle Paul fourteen. 5 Epistles of John three. Epistles of Peter two. Epistle of Jude. Epistle of James. Acts of the Apostles. John’s Apocalypse. But the rest of the books, which appear under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and John (which were written by a certain Leucius), or under the name of Andrew (which were written by the philosophers Xenocharides and Leonidas), or under the name of Thomas, and whatever others there may be, you should know they are not only to be rejected but also condemned.

  1. The Latin text here conforms to the one printed in B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (5th ed. Edinburgh, 1881), pp. 570f.
  2. That is, First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings.
  3. According to Augustine, five books were sometimes ascribed to Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus.
  4. That is, Ezra and Nehemiah.
  5. F.F. Bruce prefers “thirteen” here, which implies the omission of Hebrews. He states that “the three best” copies of the letter “reckon Paul’s epistles as thirteen (written xiii), but the rest reckon them as fourteen (written xiiii).” (Canon of Scripture, p. 234.) But it is not at all probable that Hebrews would have been deliberately omitted from the list by a Roman bishop in the year 405, and the variation between xiiii and xiii is easily explained by scribal error.



The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.


AD : At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon.  This is 100 years before the Reformation.


In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.


At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.


  • The 4 synoptic Gospels was written between 66AD and 110AD. They were likely written over a period of 77 years.
  • The authors are unknown. In fact the majority of Christians scholars share the same view that most of the books of the bible has unknown authors.
  • The Gospel authors were not eyewitnesses and thus not disciples of Jesus (pbuh)
  • The language that Jesus (pbuh) spoke was Aramaic but yet we find the scriptures of the Gospels were written in Greek. Today we have the Bible in English from which you pray. So, from this we can establish that your bible is a translation from Aramaic to Greek and then translated to English. A translation of a translation. The same applies to the old testimony written in Hebrew, then translated to Greek and again to English. Aramaic and Greek is vastly different languages and in many instances the language translated too may not have the same corresponding words. The Translators will also translate what he thinks the meaning is (his opinion). This leaves a lot of room for interpretations. The Greek scripture is then again translated to English leaving another set of interpretations and in both cases it certainly leaves a lot of room for people to start putting in their own words which was certainly not present in the first case. Therefore, Christians pray from a book twice translated.
  • It was the early church who decided what letters and manuscripts would form part of the Bible out of almost 24 000 manuscripts. None of the messengers of God had chosen books in the Bible but rather it was chosen by men who set their own standards and who were not prophets or messengers neither where they companions of the messengers of God.
  • The early church finally only came to agreement of the Canon some 400 years after Jesus (pbuh).
  • The first completed bible was only published in 1535.
  • The complete Bible was written by approximately 40 different people over a period of approximately 1500 years.

We also find that the first complete Bibles had 80 books and years later it was reduced to 73 books in the Catholic Bible and 66 books in the Protestant Bible.

1535: Myles Coverdale’s Bible; The first complete Bible to be printed in the English Language (80 Books: Old Testament and New Testament including the Apocryphal books which are non-canonical).

1537: Matthews Bible; The second complete Bible to be printed in English. Done by John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers (80 Books).

1539: The “Great Bible” or “Cramner’s Bible” printed; The first English language Bible to be authorized for public use (80 Books).

1560: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add numbered verses to each chapter (80 Books).

1568: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a revision (80 Books, as well as a 20% cut and paste from the Geneva Bible).

1609: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheimes New Testament of 1582 (Catholic translation) making the first complete English Catholic Bible; It was translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1609: The first printing of the King James Bible; originally with All 80 Books.

1611: The King James Bible revised and printed; all 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

1782: Robert Aitken’s Bible; The first English language Bible (a King James Version without Apocrypha) to be Printed in America.

1791: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas respectively produce the first Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.

1808: Jane Aitken’s Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be printed by a Woman.

1833: Noah Webster’s Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.

1846: The Illuminated Bible; The most lavishly illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.

Currently we have the protestant Bible with 66 books and the Catholic Bible with 73 books.

It is said that the Holy Spirit moved these people to write the bible. Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake and he again moved them to take out 7 books and make the books 73 and then he again moved Luther to take out another 7 books and make it 66 books?

It is the opinion of some scholars that though the 4 Gospels where written it Greek that it may have been rewritten in Greek from Aramaic as we find the Greek text riddled with Aramaic text.

We know that the Jews where there way before the Romans arrived. In Western Rome the language was Latin but we find that the Romans in the East also spoke Greek which was later introduced. The Roman elite used to write in Greek and the Government  primarily used Greek as the written language for their laws but the spoken language of the Jews and Gentiles was Aramaic.

It would then come to reason that since the common people being the Jews and Gentiles were mostly poor and uneducated, most of them would not be privy to learning how to write Greek or would not necessary want to write in Greek over their own spoken language in which they would be more comfortable and familiar with. Generally, even today we will find that people will write to their own kind in their mother tongue and not in a second language. It henceforth makes more sense that the original Gospels would have been written in Aramaic rather than Greek as it was meant to be shared among the common people and not for the Roman Elite. The common people were also poor and would not afford the best of writing material which would not last very long and most likely these original letters as we find with the book of Mark was first written in Aramaic and then rewritten in Greek on better writing material. This is why you find almost no trace left of the original Aramaic scriptures. Those which have survived are in very bad shape and can barely be read with only fragments left of it. It would most likely have been the Romans who later accepted the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) who would have ordered its writing in Greek for their own use. Hence, even the Greek letters and manuscripts that is said to be originals are in fact translations from the original Aramaic scripts. Jesus (pbuh) and his disciples taught in Aramaic so their original speech was still translated into Greek if one had to argue that they never wrote it in Aramaic which was not the case.  

What is important to note is that these translators did not write these manuscripts of their own volition, they were ordered to do so by the Romans and the same applied to the church who ordered its translation into different languages. This most certainly leaves room for inserts and changes ordered by these different authorities and we will most certainly see these inserts as we proceed.


In order to distinguish truth from falsehood we will need to test the theory and Bible verses against certain laws just as the 5 guidelines was established in the Canan to distinguish which books belong in the Bible. So we will establish a baseline of absolutes that everyone agrees on so that we may judge truth from falswood. Lets call them “Absolute Laws” for the purpose of this study.

In Islam Muslims have the Quran and the Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)). God says in the Quran.

“Do they not then consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradiction”. (Quran 4:82)

If there were any contradiction in the Quran then it cannot be from God. The Sunnah cannot also contradict the Quran.

In the same standard, if the Bible is to be considered from God or God’s word then there cannot be any errors or contradiction. So if any of the verses the Church and Christians uses to prove the their claims, then those proofs cannot contradict any other verses in the Bible or even the Quran.

In Christianity and Judaism, we only have the Tanakh / Torah (Old Testament) and the certain unambiguous and absolute statements made by Jesus (pbuh). 

In the Tanakh we have the 10 Commandments which are the laws of God and we have God’s spoken word in certain verses. In the New Testament any absolute statement made by Jesus (pbuh) in his own words can be considered the word of God as Jesus (pbuh) himself said that he only speaks that which God has commanded him to speak John 12:49 & John 7:16. No Jew or Christian will deny the 10 Commandments and the word of God and no Christian will deny Jesus’ (pbuh) words about himself as his law.

The Laws of God

The 10 Commandments

  1. I am the Lord thy God! Thou shalt have no other Gods but me!
  2. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain!
  3. Thou shalt keep the Sabbath Day holy!
  4. Thou shalt honor father and mother!
  5. Thou shalt not kill!
  6. Thou shalt not commit adultery!
  7. Thou shalt not steal!
  8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor!
  9. Do not let thyself lust after thy neighbor’s wife!
  10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, nor his farm, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his!

      1. Isaiah 45:21-22

21 Declare what is to be, present it – let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me.

22 “Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.

  1. 2 Kings 17:35-38

35 When the Lord made a covenant with the Israelites, he commanded them: “Do not worship any other gods or bow down to them, serve them or sacrifice to them. 36 But the Lord, who brought you up out of Egypt with mighty power and outstretched arm, is the one you must worship. To him you shall bow down and to him offer sacrifices. 37 You must always be careful to keep the decrees and regulations, the laws and commands he wrote for you. Do not worship other gods. 38 Do not forget the covenant I have made with you, and do not worship other gods

  1. Isaiah 43:10

10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Jesus Words (His Law)

  1. Mark 12:28-30

The Greatest Commandment

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

  1. John 8:42

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me

  1. John 10:29

“My Father is greater than all.”

  1. Matthew 23:9

And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

5.     Matthew 5:17

Christ Came to Fulfill the Law.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

6.     John 5:30

30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

  1. John 7:16

“Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me.”

  1. John 12:49

“For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.”

  1. Matthew 19:17

17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

10.         Mark 10:18 New International Version (NIV)

18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

Further more, we have proven the Quran to be the word of God and the Quran was revealed to a Prophet of God and was verified in his presence. If the Bible is considered to be from God then there can be no contradiction between the Quran and the Bible as both books are from God.

We will therefor use a few Laws from the Quran to distinguish between truth and falsehood as well.

Laws of God in Islam

  1. Quran 112:4

Say, “He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent.”

  1. Quran 3:64

Say, “O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you – that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah .” But if they turn away, then say, “Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him].”

Now that we have established the Laws we can proceed baring in mind that if any verses of the Bible conflicts with the Laws then it can in no way be from God or Jesus (pbuh) as neither tells lies or contridicts themselvs.


Many people assume that God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit form what is commonly known as the trinity. The doctrine of the trinity is usually summed up as a belief in one God existing in three distinct but equal persons. But did you realize that even though it is a common assumption among many sincere Christian people, the word trinity does not appear anywhere in the Bible?

In fact, the word trinity did not come into common use as a religious term until centuries after the last books of the Bible were completed and long after the apostles of Christ were gone from the scene! Could the trinity doctrine have pagan origins?

Notice this admission in the New Bible Dictionary, “The term trinity is not itself found in the Bible. It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century, but received wide currency [common use in intellectual discussion] and formal elucidation [clarification] only in the 4th and 5th centuries.” — (1996, “Trinity”)

Is the Trinity Docrine in the Bible?

The New Bible Dictionary goes on to explain that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity was the result of several inadequate attempts to explain who and what the Christian God really is … To deal with these problems the Church Fathers met in [A.D.] 325 at the Council of Nicaea to set out an orthodox biblical definition concerning the divine identity.” However, it wasn’t until 381, “at the Council of Constantinople, [that] the divinity of the Spirit was affirmed.”

While Tertullian introduced the term “trinity,” what he taught and believed is different to what the trinity doctrine is today. And since he introduced this term, than that means the trinity doctrine as taught today did not exist in the time of Tertullian. And if it did not exist in his time, then it could never have existed in the time of Christ and the apostles.

Tertullian however did introduce pagan ideas into the worship service. He taught oblations for the dead and made the sign of the cross on the forehead of worshipers. He also dipped people three times to baptize them. Tertullian freely admitted that he had adopted these ideas from pagan teachings and could not support them from Scripture, but he thought that if Christians adopted some heathen rituals of the pagans that they would find it easier to join Christianity.

Wikipedia states what Tertullian believed on the Godhead:

Tertullian was just a forerunner of the Nicene doctrine and did not state the immanent trinity. His use of trinitas (Latin: ‘Threeness’) emphasised the manifold character of God. In his treatise against Praxeas he used the words, “Trinity and economy, persons and substance.” The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. “These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance.” In his book Tertullian against Praxeas, he also states that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father and did have a beginning as the begotten Son of God. He also did not teach that the Holy Spirit was a literal being. So the trinity doctrine as we know it today did not even come from the man who introduced the word Trinity.

So the doctrine of the trinity wasn’t formalized until long after the Bible was completed and the apostles were long dead in their graves, and long after the man who introduced the word Trinity was dead and in his grave. It took later theologians centuries to sort out what they believed and to formulate the belief in the trinity!

By no means are theologians’ explanations of the trinity doctrine clear. Religious writer A.W. Tozer in his book The Knowledge of the Holy states that the trinity is an “incomprehensible mystery” and that attempts to understand it “must remain forever futile.” He admits that Churches, “without pretending to understand,” have nevertheless continued to teach this doctrine (1961, pp. 17, 18) He then remarkably concludes, “The fact that it cannot be satisfactorily explained, instead of being against it, is in its favor.” — (p. 23)

The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary in its article on the trinity concedes that the Trinitarian concept is humanly incomprehensible, “It is admitted by all who thoughtfully deal with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us into the presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of necessity imperfect.” — (1988, p. 1308)

Cyril Richardson, professor of Church history at New York’s Union Theological Seminary, though a dedicated Trinitarian himself said this in his book The Doctrine of The Trinity, “My conclusion, then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct … It produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems with which it deals are real ones, the solutions it offers are not illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless, because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms.” — (1958, pp. 148-149)

He also admitted, “Much of the defense of the Trinity as a ‘revealed’ doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it.” — (p. 16)

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge states regarding the trinity, “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.” — (Lyman Abbott, editor, 1885, “Trinitarians”)

Why do even those who believe in the trinity doctrine find it so difficult to explain?

The answer is simple yet shocking. It is because the Bible does not teach it! One cannot prove or explain something from the Bible that is not in the Biblical. The Bible is considered by Christians to be the only reliable source of divine revelation. And the truth as we will see is that the trinity concept simply is not part of God’s revelation to mankind.

These following admissions from a number of reputable sources and authors who, while themselves affirming the Trinity, acknowledge that the word Trinity and the doctrine is not found in the Bible.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that “‘trinity’ is a second-century term found nowhere in the Bible, and the Scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement.” — (1988, Vol. 4, “Trinity,” p. 914). It further states that “church fathers crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centuries”—long after the apostles had passed from the scene.

Martin Luther who was the German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation said, “It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man.” — (reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406)

Historian and science fiction writer H.G. Wells in his noted work The Outline of History stated, “There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) ever heard of the trinity—at any rate from him.” — (1920, Vol. 2, p. 499)

The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism says, “Today, however, scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the OT or the NT … It would go far beyond the intention and thought-forms of the OT to suppose that a late-fourth-century or thirteenth-century Christian doctrine can be found there … Likewise, the NT does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.” — (Richard McBrien, general editor, 1995, “God,” pp. 564, 565)

And the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary states, “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT.” — (Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, “Trinity”)

Professor Charles Ryrie wrote, “Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that ‘clearly’ states that there is one God who exists in three persons.” — (Basic Theology, p. 89)

He goes on to say, “The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results . . . If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity.” — (lbid, p. 90)

Shirley Guthrie, professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary wrote, “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ‘trinity’ itself nor such language as ‘one-in-three,’ ‘three-in-one,’ one ‘essence’ (or ‘substance’), and three ‘persons,’ is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy.” — (Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76, 77)

Millard Erickson who is a research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary writes that the Trinity “is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.
In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble.” — (God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, p. 12)

He further states that the Trinity teaching “is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God.” — (lbid, p. 20)

He also stated, “It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity’s uniqueness … how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? … For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.
Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion.” — (lbid, pp. 108, 109)

Since the trinity is not found in the Bible as so many scholars and theologians admit, then how did it come to be viewed as such an important teaching? Theology professors Roger Olson and Christopher Hall explain part of the puzzle in their book The Trinity, “It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture … How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture? …

The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the New Testament in the heat of controversy, but the church fathers who developed it believed they were simply exegeting [explaining] divine revelation and not at all speculating or inventing new ideas. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical (universal) councils: Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.).” — (2002, pp. 1, 2)

We see from this and other sources quoted above that the idea of a trinity was foreign to Biblical writers. Instead, as many of these sources openly acknowledge, the doctrine of the trinity developed considerably later and over a span of several centuries. To understand the factors that led to the introduction of this belief, we must first go way back to Babel.

The Pagan Origins of the Trinity Doctrine

It would surprise many to know that the absolute beginnings of the three in one trinity doctrine goes right back to the Tower of Babel on the plain of Shinar by the River Euphrates many generations after the flood. At the time of the construction of Babylon at the Tower of Babel, mankind had multiplied and spoken one language. (Genesis 11:1-4) Cush who was the son of Ham and grandson of Noah (Genesis 10:1, 6), helped to plan with his son Nimrod, a way to rule the world through a wicked counterfeit religion. Nimrod was the originator of sun worship and founder of Babylon. The Targum says, “Nimrod became a mighty man of sin, a murderer of innocent men, and a rebel before the Lord.So the beginning of Nimrod’s plan had its origin at Babel which was later known as Babylon. This city of Babylon with a tower “whose top may reach unto heaven” was built by Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-10; 11:4). They called the tower “Babel, the gate to heaven,” but God called it “Babel, confusion,” and there God confused the language of the people which forced them to scatter. These people wanted one government to rule the world and one religion to sway the hearts of man. This was Satan’s attempt to defy God and His authority, but God came down and stopped this rebellion in defiance of His command for mankind to replenish the earth (Genesis 9:1) by confusing their language. So they stopped building and were scattered to different parts of the world (Genesis 11:8-9).

Nimrod had a plan to strengthen his evil religious system and so he married his own mother Semiramis. She was the first deified queen of Babylon and Nimrod was the first deified king.

Nimrod’s and Semiramis’ followers plunged so deeply into the occult that they even sacrificed babies to Satan in their worship of him. This became a common practice until Shem who was one of Noah’s three sons and the great uncle of Nimrod, in his anger and wrath killed Nimrod and cut him up into small pieces as an example to others to not commit such abominable sins.

Alexander Hislop in his book The Two Babylons said, “the Tower of Babel was actually the worship of Satan in the form of fire, the sun and the serpent. However, Satan worship could not be done openly because of the many who still believed in the true God of Noah. So a mystery religion began at Babel where Satan could be worshipped in secret.” — (Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, 2nd American ed.(Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1959) 5, 24)

Because of Nimrod’s death, his followers and Semiramis were afraid to continue in their worship of Satan for fear that what happened to Nimrod would also happen to them, so a mystery religion developed at Babel where Satan could be worshipped in secret. The same thing is happening in these last days. Satan is using mysteries and deceptions to deceive people into thinking that they are worshipping the true God when they are actually worshipping Satan.

This counterfeit religion ceased for a short time but Semiramis had a brilliant idea of how she could successfully revive her and Nimrod’s pagan religion with a new form. It was not long after the death of her husband that Semiramis became pregnant. She claimed that when Nimrod died he went up to the sun, and so the sun then became a symbol of Nimrod. She told the people that a ray of the sun had come to her and impregnated her with a child and that it was actually Nimrod coming back in a reincarnation of the sun god. The child was called Tammuz and these three were worshipped as the personification of the sun god, and this is where we find the first three came into existence. But this mystery religion was nothing more than Satan worship.

The trinity got its start in Ancient Babylon with Nimrod – Tammuz – and Semiramis. Semiramis demanded worship for both her husband and her son as well as herself. She claimed that her son, was both the father and the son. Yes, he was “god the father” and “god the son” – The first divine incomprehensible trinity.” — (The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop, p. 51)

So Semiramis proclaimed that her husband Nimrod was a god, and she as the wife of Nimrod was a goddess. She then announced herself to be “The Queen of Heaven” and that she should be worshiped as such. She claimed that her spirit was the moon and that when she died she would dwell in the moon, even as Nimrod was already in the sun. This system of paganism while professing to be the true religion is actually devil worship. It professes and claims to be the truth of God but in reality it is Satan’s masterpiece and the “mystery of iniquity.  Semiramis and her priests of Satan were deep into the occult and were masters of lies and deception. Everywhere there were statues or idols of this mother/child cult. Semiramis was soon hailed as “The Queen of Heaven” (Ashtarte). Her symbol became the moon and her husband Nimrod, was called Baal the sun god and hence his symbol became the sun. So we find that the trinity has its origins all the way back in Babylon. If God had not interfered and confused the languages then we would have had no hope of any truth that we have today. We also find that this worship of three was carried to all the different cultures that we have today but they took on different names since God had confused the languages as we find in Genesis 11So in Egypt, their trinity became Osiris, Horus and Isis (top left). In Greece it was Zeus, Apollo and Athena (top right). And in India there was Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva (bottom left). Notice also the yellow halo around their heads which represents the sun god. The system of Rome adopted the same symbol where you see saints with a halo around their head. Most tend to think that this means they are holy but it actually represents the sun god. And speaking of Rome, they had Jupiter, Mars and Venus (bottom right).

These few are by no means a comprehensive list but in all the many cultures and pagan systems of worship, we find the ultimate worship of their gods always ends up in three. The common denominator is that they all started at the very same place. But now that they had different languages, they all had different names. As far back into the ancient world as we can go, we find that all known cultures had a three in one triune god.

There is a lot more that could be covered on this topic but what we have is adequate for this study. The parts that have not been examined can be briefly covered by the following summary of the heathen trinity.

  1. There are always three beings in this triune god.
  2. One is the father, one is the mother and one is the son.
  3. The son is also the husband of the mother.
  4. The son is the father incarnate.
  5. All three have been deified as gods.
  6. Often these three are said to be one god. That is, one in three forms, or three in one.
  7. The father is often not mentioned and instead the mother and son are worshipped by themselves.
  8. At times the heathen trinity is seen as one god playing three roles, and is pictured with three heads.
  9. At other times this one god is seen with three faces on one head.
  10. In several branches of heathenism, the third person of this trinity is regarded as evil and a destroyer.

Alexander Hislop summed up the trinity with the following, “All these have existed from ancient times. While overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world.” — (The Two Babylons, pp. 17, 18).

Remember that the trinity doctrine, and why it is called as such, is as follows. The Father is God, Jesus (pbuh) is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three gods but one God, and that’s the trinity! In other words, 1+1+1=One! This of course makes no sense at all and is not found in the Bible, so where did it really come from?

The very first three-in-one trinity was the worship of the three stages of the sun!

(1. New born at dawn. (2. Mature and full grown at 12 noon. (3. Old and dying at the end of the day. (Jordan Maxwell. BBC of America Quoted in Exposure Vol. 5, No. 6 1999). All three of course were one divinity being the sun. And so the main medium through which Satan was worshipped in Babylon was the sun. They noticed that the sun had three distinct stages and this fitted well with their belief as they were already worshipping three. Thus the sun was worshiped as three gods. The rising and new born sun as it came to life, the mature and full grown sun at noon, and the dying sun as it set at the end of the day. Yet while they worshipped the sun as three gods, they were not three gods but one god!

So the rising sun was god, the midday sun was god, the setting sun was god, and yet there were not three gods but one god! In other words, 1+1+1=One! So here is the true absolute origin of the trinity doctrine. And this became incorporated into this mystery religion and the worship of Satan.

Three became the most universal number of deity. Sun worship is one of the most primitive forms of religion, and early man sometimes distinguished between rising, midday, and setting sun. The Egyptians, for example, divided the sun god into three deities: Horus, rising sun, Ra or Re, midday sun, and Osiris, old setting sun.” — (Egyptian Deities, New International Encyclopedia. NY: Dodd, 1917. Volume 7, p. 529)

Three phases of the sunAnd all of this started in Babylon. So as each group travelled it took with them the same concept except they now had different names.

The pagans also believed that the three phases of the sun were the three manifestations of the supreme deity as evident in the Egyptian sun gods. See image left. This became known as the three in one god. In order to be able to represent their sun god properly, they combined all three stages of the sun into one, and the result of that would be a picture of what they really believed. When you put all three parts together, you have one and this symbol became a symbol of the sun god, and the being behind that worship was Satan.

They found this symbolism very effective and used this to disguise their Sun triangle and 666true religion. These three interlocking circles formed an equilateral triangle which is a triangle with three equal sides. With an equilateral triangle all sides are equal and must add up to 180 degrees. Each side was representing a phase of the sun with each angle of the triangle being 60 degrees. It does not take a genius to see that the next step, 60 + 60 + 60 represented 666. See image right.

The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god— as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity.” — (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22, 23)

It is also very significant that the Babylonians used the sexagesimal (base-60) number system from which comes 60 minutes in an hour, 60 seconds in a minute, 360 (60×6) degrees in a circle and 60 degrees in each angle of an equilateral triangle and so on. 360 divided by 10 = 36 and 6 * 6 = 36

This is derived from their system of worship of 36 supreme gods, which included the sun god as number one which they believed to be the father of all the other gods (Nimrod), and the moon was the mother god (Semiramis) as number two. The other gods numbered 3 to 36 were considered the children of the sun god, and included the various stars and constellations that these gods were associated with. Pagan solar seal amulet with 666These numbers from 1 to 36 total 666, which they also assigned to the sun god since it was the father of all their gods. The calculation is simply this: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 + 26 + 27 + 28 + 29 + 30 + 31 + 32 + 33 + 34 + 35 + 36 = 666. Note the Babylonian solar seal amulet with the numbers 1 to 36 and the number 666 underneath these numbers that represented the sun. The numbers are so arranged that each row and column as well as the two diagonals add up to 111. They feared their gods and believed these amulets had more power to protect them from their god’s striking them down with this number arrangement. These solar seals are almost impossible to find today and most are in private collections where Satan wants them. This true origin of the number 666 is known by very few and once again how Satan wants it as it reveals too much truth on what this number is all about and who God now assigns this number. See 666 number of the beast for detailed information.

So the pagans used these symbols and numbers to hide the worship they were giving to Satan, and sun worship or Satan worship became the religion of 666. And of course in the Bible we are told this is the number of the beast and it is the number of a man. “Here is wisdom. Let him that has understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” Revelation 13:18. And of course the beast (Papal Rome) that has this number is also called Babylon in Revelation and here is one reason why. This number has been found on many archaeological digs in Babylon such as the solar seal shown above. This system of Satan worship was a mystery religion and explains the meaning of the word mystery in Revelation 17:5 “And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” See who is mystery Babylon the great.

Catholic Shield of the TrinityThe image to the right is called the Shield of the Trinity. The precise origin of this type of diagram is unknown, but it is said that it was influenced by 12th century experiments in symbolizing the trinity in abstract visual form. This is the God that is worshipped in the Roman Catholic system. They are worshipping a God that is three in one and one in three. And we know this concept does not originate from God’s Word but goes all the way back to Babylon. Despite the origin of the Shield of the trinity being unknown, you will notice all the similarities to the symbolism from Babylon and so the absolute origin no doubt came from a much earlier time. Notice that we still have the equilateral triangle and three circles representing three gods with the only difference being that here we have a circle in the middle to show that all three are supposed to be one god. This concept of all three being the one god is from Babylon and is not found in the Bible and was not taught by the Apostles or Christ.

The trinity doctrine represented by this diagram shows Jesus is not only the Son of God but He is also the God and therefore He is His own Son. And our Heavenly Father is not only our Father but He is also God and hence God is His own Father. It also means that God sent Himself into the world, died to reconcile the world to Himself, raised Himself from the dead, ascended to Himself in heaven, pleads before Himself in heaven to reconcile the world to Himself, and is the only mediator between man and Himself. And that also means that in the garden God prayed to Himself, if it were possible, to let the cup pass from Himself. Are you confused? And yet the Bible says, “God is not the author of confusion,” 1 Corinthians 14:33, Satan is. Should we expect anything less since this three in one doctrine is not in the Bible but comes from Babylon (means confusion) and is actually the worship of Satan?

And if one truly understands the implications of the three in one trinity doctrine then it becomes like the following. And with this being the case then one might ask, “Who do you worship?”

The Puranas, one of the Hindoo Bibles of more than 3,000 years ago, contain the following passage: ‘O ye three Lords! know that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.’ The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, becoming manifest to him, replied, ‘Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.‘ Hence the triangle was adopted by all the ancient nations as a symbol of the Deity … Three was considered among all the pagan nations as the chief of the mystical numbers, because, as Aristotle remarks, it contains within itself a beginning, a middle, and an end. Hence we find it designating some of the attributes of almost all the pagan gods.” — (Sinclair, pp. 382, 383)

Below we see three interlocking circles or sections. This is known as a triquetra and they found that these three interlocking sections can be substituted for the whole so that part of each circle can be used Three phases of the sun god and the triquetrarather than the whole. This symbol that still represents the three in one sun god is found throughout different cultures and different pagan institutes of belief, and this system is still alive and well to this very day. You will often see the triquetra drawn in many different ways and you will find them in temples, shrines, paintings, etches and carvings.

The triquetra is a satanic symbol that has its origins in the occult. It has always been associated with pagan beliefs, satanic practises and witchcraft. The triquetra is composed of three 6’s overlaid. This logo is the ancient symbol for the pagan trinity. The symbol was popularised again by Satanist Aleister Crowley for the Royal Arch (Lucifer) or the 3rd Degree of the Year Order of Masonry.” — New King James Omissions A.V. Publications.) In other words, this symbol is also used today by various secret societies. And we can see from history how this has progressed throughout time. This information helps us see and unmask the deception Satan is using to deceive the whole world. For example, you can find this symbol in some of the most interesting places. Here are a few of them.

Wiccan chalices with triquetraTo the right we have wiccan chalices or goblets if you like, which are used by witches in their practises. And what is the symbol on it? 666, Satan, the triquetra. And why would that be? Because witches communicate with Satan. So we should not be at all surprised to find this symbol there.

Charmed trinity with triquetraThe next one to the left is from a TV series about three witches, not four witches but three witches interestingly enough. And likewise the symbol they use is the symbol of the sun god or the three in one god. It seems that the world is being trained to accept something and so we need to be very selective in what we watch and expose ourselves to.

Triquetra usesAnd here are another three. The Aquarian Conspiracy with the three interlocking 6’s, The Craft, which if you look carefully has a small triquetra in the middle of the cover. And last is the witches Book of Shadows. And what is the symbol there enlarged? Once again we have the symbol of the sun god, the three in one god, and the symbol for Satan. So this is the witches book of shadows and they make their intentions very plain and do not hide who their loyalties belong to.

Bibles with a triquetraAs shocking as this may be, you will also find this symbol on some editions of the New King James Bible and the New International Version of the Bible. So this symbol has even found its way onto the Bible where it does not belong. This is not a symbol of the God of the Bible but the sun god. When you read inside the cover of the Bible, if it has the triquetra on it, the description there will tell you it is the ancient symbol of the trinity. Yet these symbols belong to Satan and the three in one sun god. A symbol of the worship of the devil.

Sun worship symbolism in ChristianityCompare the top and bottom row of pictures in the image to the right. The bottom row are Christian book covers and the bottom middle picture is a book on the trinity. This is the ultimate deception when the author is teaching the unbiblical and pagan three-in-one trinity doctrine. But then also uses the pagan imagery that represents the true satanic origin of this doctrine by using things such as sun haloes around the heads of what are supposed to represent the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Did you notice the same sun haloes on both rows?

You will also note the triangles around the heads on the bottom left and right with one having three circles representing the sun and the other with one circle representing the sun and the rays of light within. The pagan imagery is blatantly obvious and appears many times in each image so coincidence is an impossibility. Much of the pagan imagery used in ancient times was often carved or engraved in stone and something that God abhors and ordered it to be destroyed. “Then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:” Numbers 33:52.

Trinitarians, such as those who write these books, will deny or change the truth in support of their belief and say that the trinity does not have its roots in paganism, but the weight of evidence is overwhelming and cannot be avoided. As all the experts say, the three in one god is not found explicitly in scripture but it is in paganism from the worship of the sun god. Triquetra on Papal mitreThe bishops that formulated the trinity doctrine were the beginnings of the Papal Church that outlawed Sabbath keeping in favour of Sunday worship that came from sun worship, as well as purgatory and dozens of other unbiblical teachings that have their roots in paganism. These bishops who formulated the doctrine of the trinity were steeped in Greek and Platonic philosophy, and there can be no doubt this influenced their religious views and teaching.

The pagan Babylonian priests had a chief priest who held the title Pontifex Maximus (translated to Latin meant that he was head pagan priest or literally the Greatest Pontiff)

So who is Pontifex Maximus and head priest of Babylon now? The Pope! So he has the number 666! So guess where else we find this satanic symbol called the triquetra?

Here is wisdom. Let him that has understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” Revelation 13:18. God gave us this information and so many have missed it because they are too busy worshipping the gods of Babylon.

By the second century, faithful members of the true Church had largely been scattered by waves of deadly persecution and were mostly underground. They held firmly to the biblical truth about Jesus Christ and God the Father, though they were persecuted by the Roman authorities as well as those who professed Christianity. The Church that was above ground grew in power and influence, and within a few short centuries came to dominate even the mighty Roman Empire!

Now Satan desired to be worshipped like the most High (Isaiah 14:12-14) and wanted his own day of worship. So sun worship gave rise to Sunday worship in the Church instead of the true day of worship being the Seventh day that we call Saturday, as well as the pagan three in one trinity doctrine. Paganism eventually became mingled with Christianity and was officially adopted by the Papal Church. Many Catholics deny this ever happened but their own Church admits that it is true.

The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.” — (An Essay on The Development of the Christian Doctrine John Henry “Cardinal Newman” p.373)

It has often been charged… that Catholicism is overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that accusation and even to make it her boast… the great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized.” — (The Story of Catholicism, p. 37)

It is interesting to note how often our Church has availed herself of practices which were in common use among pagans … Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those of pagan creeds…” — (The Externals of the Catholic Church, Her Government, Ceremonies, Festivals, Sacramentals and Devotions, by John F. Sullivan, p. 156, published by P.J. Kennedy, NY, 1942)

So it is not surprising that the two things the Roman Catholic Church mock Protestants for are the two things they brought into the Church that are pagan, and both originated from sun worship, which was Satan worship from Babylon. If only more Christians had a desire to learn the real truth instead of defending what Satan has brought into the Church.

Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.” — (Rome’s Challenge, www.immaculateheart.com/maryonline, Dec 2003)

Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in scripture … But the Protestant Churches have themselves accepted such dogmas, as the Trinity, for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels, — (Assumption of Mary, Life magazine, Oct 30, 1950, p. 51)

The question was asked in the Catholic Catechism.

Q. What is Sunday, or the Lord’s Day in general?
 A. It is a day dedicated by the Apostles to the honour of the most holy Trinity, and in memory that Christ our Lord arose from the dead upon Sunday, sent down the holy Ghost on a Sunday, &c. and therefore is called the Lord’s Day. It is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of Dies Solis, the day of the sun, to which it was sacred.
— (The Douay Catechism of 1649, p. 143)

An interesting statement considering “Sunday worship” and the “Trinity doctrine” both came from sun and Satan worship in Babylon, and they were both brought into Christendom by the Catholic Church whom God calls Babylon!

Some of the above information has been taken from the video “The gods of Babylon” and is only a small portion of the information available. I highly recommend watching the entire video for the rest of the story that I have not covered above. You will find it at the bottom of this page or by selecting the link above.

The Origins of the Trinity Doctrine into the Church

So now we know the absolute origins of the trinity doctrine but very few understand how it came to be accepted by the Church several centuries after the Bible was completed. And as you have just seen, its roots go back much farther in history. By late in the first century as we see from 3 John 9-10, conditions had grown so dire that false ministers openly refused to receive representatives of the apostle John and were excommunicating true Christians from the Church!

Of this troubling period Edward Gibbon, the famed historian, wrote in his classic work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire of a “dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church.” — (1821, Vol. 2, p. 111)

It was not long before true servants of God became a marginalized and scattered minority among those calling themselves Christian. A very different religion, now compromised with many concepts and practices rooted in ancient paganism (such mixing of religious beliefs being known as syncretism, common in the Roman Empire at the time), took hold and transformed the faith founded by Jesus Christ.

Historian Jesse Hurlbut says of this time of transformation, “We name the last generation of the first century, from 68 to 100 A.D., ‘The Age of Shadows,’ partly because the gloom of persecution was over the church, but more especially because of all the periods in the [church’s] history, it is the one about which we know the least. We have no longer the clear light of the Book of Acts to guide us; and no author of that age has filled the blank in the history …
For fifty years after St. Paul’s life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul.
” — (The Story of the Christian Church, 1970, p. 33)

This “very different” Church would grow in power and influence, and within a few short centuries would come to dominate even the mighty Roman Empire! By the second century, faithful members of the Church, Christ’s “little flock” (Luke:12:32) had largely been scattered by waves of deadly persecution. They held firmly to the biblical truth about Jesus Christ and God the Father, though they were persecuted by the Roman authorities as well as those who professed Christianity but were in reality teaching “another Jesus” and a “different gospel.

Different Ideas about the Godhead Lead to Conflict

Ignatius of Antioch was a student and disciple of the Apostle John whom God trusted the book of Revelation. Note below from John’s disciple some of the different errors that were creeping into the early Church. Would John have corrected Ignatius if he was in error? And most significantly, note that Ignatius did not believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one god or that Jesus was co-eternal with the Father. And since Ignatius was John’s disciple, what did he teach his student?

They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; … Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power. Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons.” — (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter VI – Abstain from the Poison of Heretics)

Notice the name of this chapter is called “Abstain from the Poison of Heretics.” Oh how things have changed. Those who reject the pagan three in one god principle are typically called heretics today, and yet in John’s time it was the other way around. Never underestimate Satan to turn truth into error and error into truth.

These four verses from John are the only Scriptures in the entire Bible that use the word antichrist. You will note that John says that these people he called antichrist used to be part of the early Church but apostatized and went out on their own (see green highlighted text) and were in the world in his lifetime (see blue highlighted text). Thus these people John is calling antichrist used to be with them and were professed Christians, but they began teaching something that was wrong. So what error did they teach that caused John to call them antichrist? (see yellow highlighted text) We can see that John says they were denying the Father and the Son and that Jesus came in the flesh. But how does a Christian deny the Father and the Son? Read on and find out as this is clearly a salvation issue.

1 John 2:18-19 “Little children, it is the last time: and as you have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

1 John 2:22-23 “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same has not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son has the Father also.

1 John 4:3 “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the fleshThis is a deceiver and an antichrist.

So this was the setting in which the doctrine of the trinity emerged. In those early decades after Jesus Christ’s ministry, death and resurrection, and spanning the next few centuries, various ideas sprang up as to His exact nature. Was He man? Was He God? Was He God appearing as a man? Was He an illusion? Was He a mere man who became God? Was He created by God the Father, or did He exist eternally with the Father?

All of these ideas had their proponents. The unity of belief of the original Church was lost as new beliefs, many borrowed or adapted from pagan religions replaced the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Let us be clear that when it comes to the intellectual and theological debates in those early centuries that led to the formulation of the trinity, the true Church of God was largely absent from the scene as it was eventually driven underground. For this reason, in that stormy period we often see debates not between truth and error, but between one error and a different error. This is a fact seldom recognized by many modern scholars.

A classic example of this was the dispute over the nature of Christ that led the Roman emperor Constantine the Great to convene the Council of Nicea (in modern-day western Turkey) in 325 A.D. Constantine, although held by many to be the first Christian Roman Emperor, was actually a sun worshiper who was only baptized on his deathbed. During his reign he had his eldest son and his wife murdered. He was also vehemently anti-Semitic, referring in one of his edicts to “the detestable Jewish crowd” and “the customs of these most wicked men,” customs that were in fact rooted in the Bible and practiced by Jesus and the apostles who were Jews. Many are also unaware that Jews are non-Trinitarian and always have been! So what does that mean in relation to Jesus and the apostles?

As emperor in a period of great tumult within the Roman Empire, Constantine was challenged with keeping the empire unified. He recognized the value of religion in uniting his empire. This was in fact one of his primary motivations in accepting and sanctioning the “Christian” religion which, by this time, had drifted far from the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles and was Christian in name only.

But now Constantine faced a new challenge. Religion researcher Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God that “one of the first problems that had to be solved was the doctrine of God … a new danger arose from within which split Christians into bitterly warring camps.” — (1993, p. 106)

Athanasius verses Arius at the Council of Nicea

Constantine convened the Council of Nicea in the year 325 A.D. as much for political reasons for unity in the empire as religious ones. The primary issue at that time came to be known as the Arian controversy.

In the hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing body of Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was to his interest to have the church vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop Hosius, who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet representing the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to restore harmony.
Constantine himself of course neither knew nor cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius’ advice appealed to him as sound.
” — (Arthur Cushman McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, 1954, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Arius was a priest from Alexandria in Egypt who supposedly taught that Christ, because He was the Son of God, must have had a beginning and therefore was begotten, or created or established. Further, if Jesus was the Son, the Father of necessity must be older. Opposing the teachings of Arius was Athanasius, a deacon also from Alexandria. His view was an early form of Trinitarianism wherein the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one but at the same time distinct from each other.

The decision as to which view the Church council would accept was to a large extent arbitrary. Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God, “When the bishops gathered at Nicaea on May 20, 325, to resolve the crisis, very few would have shared Athanasius’s view of Christ. Most held a position midway between Athanasius and Arius.” — (p. 110)

As emperor, Constantine was in the unusual position of deciding Church doctrine even though he was not really a Christian. (The following year is when he had both his wife and son murdered, as previously mentioned)

Historian Henry Chadwick attests, “Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun.” — (The Early Church, 1993, p. 122). As to the emperor’s embrace of Christianity, Chadwick admits, “His conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace … It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear.” (p. 125)

Chadwick does say that Constantine’s deathbed baptism itself “implies no doubt about his Christian belief,” it being common for rulers to put off baptism to avoid accountability for things like torture and executing criminals (p. 127). But this justification doesn’t really help the case for the emperor’s conversion being genuine.

Norbert Brox, a professor of Church history confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian, “Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god … At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god).” — (A Concise History of the Early Church, 1996, p. 48)

When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia Britannica states, “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed … the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council … Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.” — (1971 edition, Vol. 6, “Constantine,” p. 386)

With the emperor’s approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius which was also a minority view. The Church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicea to endorse a belief held by only a minority of those attending. Constantine is also believed to have exiled those who refused to accept the Nicean creed being Arius himself, the deacon Euzoios and the Libyan bishops Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais. He also exiled the bishops who signed the creed but refused to join in the condemnation of Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicea. However, there is no evidence that Constantius II who was his son and successor was exiled for being an Arian Christian. The Emperor also ordered all copies of the Thalia to be burned, which was the book in which Arius expressed his teachings. The groundwork for official acceptance of the trinity was now laid, but it had taken more than three centuries after Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection for this unbiblical teaching to emerge!

Several years later Constantine became more lenient toward those he had condemned and exiled at the council. First he allowed Eusebius of Nicomedia to return who was a protégé of his sister, and then Theognis once he had signed an ambiguous statement of faith. These two and other friends of Arius worked towards getting Arius returned. In 335 A.D. they brought accusations against Athanasius and so Constantine now had Athanasius banished! In the same year, the Synod of Jerusalem under Constantine’s direction readmitted Arius to communion in 336 A.D. So Arius was returned from exile when he suddenly died an abysmal death on the way. Some historian Scholars believe that Arius was poisoned by his opponents and question if Athanasius arranged it. Either way, Constantine who was now an Arian ordered Athanasius exiled. Eusebius and Theognis remained in the Emperor’s favour and when Constantine accepted baptism on his deathbed, it was performed by Eusebius of Nicomedia.

[Previous two paragraphs source: Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 21, (1776–88), Jonathan Kirsch, God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism, 2004, and Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, 2002].

‘His [Arius’] book, ‘Thalia,’ was burnt on the spot; and this example was so generally followed, that it became a very rare work.’ — Stanley ‘History of the Eastern Church,’ Lecture iv, par. 39. The decree banishing Arius was shortly so modified as simply to prohibit his returning to Alexandria.” — (The Two Republics, A.T. Jones, p. 351)

The Catholic Church exerted all her power to destroy any records of what Arius believed. The only records we have are those that either fell through the hands of the Catholic power, or those which they have chosen to keep, whether in their original form or altered by them.

An erroneous charge was circulated that all who were called Arians believed that Christ was a created being. [Footnote: It is doubtful if many believed Christ to be a created being. Generally, those evangelical bodies who opposed the papacy and who were branded as Arians confessed both the divinity of Christ and that He was begotten, not created, by the Father. They recoiled from other extreme deductions and speculations concerning the Godhead.]” — (Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, p. 92)

Whether the teachings of Arius were such as are usually represented to us or not, who can say? Phillipus Limborch doubts that Arius himself ever held that Christ was created instead of being begotten [Footnote: Limborch, The History of the Inquisition, page 95].” — (Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, p. 142)

In 538 A.D, the Arian believers were completely wiped out by the Catholic Church, leaving the Papacy as the sole “Corrector of heretics.” Anyone opposing the Catholic teaching of the trinity was exterminated, for “the Mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic Faith.” — (Handbook for Today’s Catholic, p. 11)

So how was the trinity doctrine finally established? Was it through careful study of the Scriptures by all parties to establish what the truth was? No! It happened through decades of persecution and bloodshed and by the Papal Church murdering the three Arian tribes that opposed them! The Trinitarian view was won by taking out the opposition.

Debate not Ended by The Nicean Council

The Council of Nicea did not end the controversy. Karen Armstrong explains, “Athanasius managed to impose his theology on the delegates … with the emperor breathing down their necks …
The show of agreement pleased Constantine, who had no understanding of the theological issues, but in fact there was no unanimity at Nicaea. After the council, the bishops went on teaching as they had before, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain imperial favor. Athanasius was exiled no fewer than five times. It was very difficult to make his creed stick.” — (pp. 110, 111)

So after Constantine’s death in 337 A.D. disputes continued. Constantine’s son Constantius II who had become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene creed. His advisor in these affairs was Eusebius of Nicomedia who had already at the Council of Nicea been the head of the Arian party and who was also made bishop of Constantinople. Constantius used his power to exile bishops that followed the Nicene creed and especially Athanasius who fled to Rome. In 355 A.D. Constantius became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces. The continuing debates resulted in numerous synods. Among them was the Council of Sardica in 343 A.D, the Council of Sirmium in 358 A.D. and the double Council of Rimini and Seleucia in 359 A.D. There were no fewer than fourteen further creed formulas between 340 and 360 A.D.

So the fires of this Godhead quarrel burned brightly for over fifty years. From 351 to 360 A.D, Emperor Constantius (son of Constantine) convened no fewer than nine councils of bishops for the sole purpose of trying to settle them to no avail.

After the death of Constantius in 361 A.D, his successor Julian who was a devotee of Rome’s pagan gods declared that he would no longer favor one church faction over another and allowed all exiled bishops to return. This resulted in further increasing dissension among Christians. The Emperor Valens however revived Constantius’ policy and supported the “Homoian” party exiling bishops. During this persecution many bishops were exiled to the other ends of the Empire.

The ongoing disagreements were at times violent and bloody. Of the aftermath of the Council of Nicea, noted historian Will Durant writes, “Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome.” — (The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8). Ramsay MacMullen in his book Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries wrote, “…more Christians died for their faith at the hands of fellow Christians than had died before in all the persecutions.” While claiming to be Christian many believers fought and slaughtered one another over their differing views of God!

Of the following decades, Professor Harold Brown writes, “During the middle decades of this century, from 340 to 380, the history of doctrine looks more like the history of court and church intrigues and social unrest … The central doctrines hammered out in this period often appear to have been put through by intrigue or mob violence rather than by the common consent of Christendom led by the Holy Spirit.” (Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, 2003, p. 119)

Debate Shifts to the Nature of the Holy Spirit

The Nicean Council, convened by Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D, did not actually declare the belief in the doctrine of the trinity as it is today. The bishops decided that Jesus is God just as the Father is God, but the creed they adopted did not mention the deity of the Holy Spirit. The statement issued at the Council of Nicea in this regard simply said, “We believe in the Holy Spirit.” This “seemed to have been added to Athanasius’s creed almost as an afterthought,” writes Karen Armstrong. “People were confused about the Holy Spirit. Was it simply a synonym for God or was it something more?” — (p. 115) Trinitarian professors Roger Olson and Christopher Hall said, “the Spirit had appeared almost as a footnote to the Creed of Nicea…” — (The Trinity, p. 40) So disagreements soon centered around the nature of the Holy Spirit.

Professor Charles Ryrie writes, “In the second half of the fourth century, three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor [today central Turkey] gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity.” — (Basic Theology, p. 65). They proposed an idea that was a step beyond Athanasius’ view, being that God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit were co-equal and together in one being, yet also distinct from one another.

These three men were Basil “the Great” who was bishop of Caesarea (330-379 A.D.), his younger brother Gregory, bishop of Nyssa (335-394 A.D.) and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390 A.D.), and they were all “trained in Greek philosophy,” (Armstrong, p. 113) which undoubtedly affected their outlook and beliefs. Together they comprised what has come to be known as “the three Cappadocians.”

In the view of these three, as Karen Armstrong explains, “the Trinity only made sense as a mystical or spiritual experience … It was not a logical or intellectual formulation but an imaginative paradigm that confounded reason. Gregory of Nazianzus made this clear when he explained that contemplation of the Three in One induced a profound and overwhelming emotion that confounded thought and intellectual clarity.
‘No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Three than I am carried back into the One. When I think of any of the Three, I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me.
” — (p. 117). So Karen Armstrong concludes, it is little wonder that, “For many Western Christians … the Trinity is simply baffling.” — (ibid.)

Ongoing Dispute Leads to the Constantinople

It was not until the co-reigns of Gratian and Theodosius that Arianism lost control among the ruling class and elite of the Eastern Empire. Theodosius’ wife St Flacilla was also instrumental in his campaign to stop Arianism. Valens died in the Battle of Adrianople in 378 A.D. and was succeeded by Theodosius I who followed the Nicene creed.

On 24 November 380 A.D, two days after Theodosius arrived in Constantinople, he expelled the Homoiousian bishop Demophilus of Constantinople and surrendered the Churches of that city to Gregory of Nazianzus who was the leader of a small Nicene community there. This act provoked rioting. Bishop Acholius of Thessalonica had just baptized Theodosius during a severe illness as was common in the early Christian world. In February he and Gratian had published an edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene faith), or be handed over for punishment for not doing so. [Above information sourced from Sozomen’s Church History VII.4]

So what was the significance of Rome and Alexandria? They were the only places in the world where many Christians kept only Sunday and not the true Sabbath. Why? Because this is where the pagan practices of Babylon landed after it was conquered. And what was the dominant pagan practice that the Babylonian priests brought with them? Sun worship which was done on Sun-day! Throughout the entire history of the change of Sabbath to Sunday, Rome and Alexandria had worked together. Alexandria provided the philosophical reasons for the changes and Rome provided the decrees and anathemas.

Church historian Socrates Scholasticus (5th century) wrote: “For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [of the Lord’s Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.” — (Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Ch. 22)

So the trinity doctrine and Sunday worship both came from sun and Satan worship that grew in power from the Catholic Church that came from the bishops of Rome and Alexandria. Two pagan practices with the same origin!

In the year May 381 A.D. being 44 years after Constantine’s death, Emperor Theodosius convened the Council of Constantinople (today Istanbul, Turkey) to put an end to the disputes. Gregory of Nazianzus who was recently appointed as archbishop of Constantinople was to preside over the council to urge the adoption of his view on the Holy Spirit.

Historian Charles Freeman states, “Virtually nothing is known of the theological debates of the council of 381, but Gregory was certainly hoping to get some acceptance of his belief that the Spirit was consubstantial with the Father [meaning that the persons are of the same being, as substance in this context denotes individual quality].
Whether he dealt with the matter clumsily or whether there was simply no chance of consensus, the ‘Macedonians,’ bishops who refused to accept the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, left the council … Typically, Gregory berated the bishops for preferring to have a majority rather than simply accepting ‘the Divine Word’ of the Trinity on his authority.
” — (A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State, 2008, p. 96)

However, Gregory soon became ill and had to withdraw from the council. Who would preside now? “So it was that one Nectarius, an elderly city senator who had been a popular prefect in the city as a result of his patronage of the games, but who was still not a baptized Christian, was selected … Nectarius appeared to know no theology, and he had to be initiated into the required faith before being baptized and consecrated.” — (Freeman, pp. 97, 98)

It is absolutely bizarre that a man who up to this point wasn’t a Christian was appointed to preside over a major Church council tasked with determining what it would teach regarding the nature of God!

The Trinity Becomes Official Doctrine

The teaching of the three Cappadocians “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture.” — (Harper-Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, p. 568)

Trinitarian Baptist professor Millard J. Erickson states, “What Athanasius did was to extend his teaching about the Word to the Spirit, so that God exists eternally as a Triad sharing one identical and indivisible substance. The Cappadocians – Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa – developed the doctrine of the Spirit, and thus of the Trinity, further.” — (God In Three Persons, p. 90)

Note that “Although Athanasius prepared the ground, constructive agreement on the central doctrine of the Trinity was not reached in his lifetime (297-373 A.D.)” — (Macropaedia, Vol. 16, p. 319)

Nineteenth century historian Adolph Harnack wrote, “The Cappadocians were still relatively independent theologians, worthy disciples and admirers of Origen, using new forms to make the faith of Athanasius intelligible to contemporary thought, and thus establishing them, though with modifications.” — (History of Dogma, Vol. 3, p. 151)

Gregory (of Nyssa) was able to demonstrate the application of the incarnation more definitely than Athanasius could… But he does so by the aid of a thoroughly Platonic idea which is only slightly suggested in Athanasius, and is not really covered by Biblical reference.” — (Vol. 3, p. 297)

The council adopted a statement that translates into English as, in part, “We 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 the Father before all ages … And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets …” The statement also affirmed belief “in one holy, catholic [meaning in this context universal, whole or complete] and apostolic Church …

Although much of the Church hierarchy in the East had opposed the Nicene Creed in the decades leading up to Theodosius’ accession, he eventually succeeded in achieving unity with the Nicene Creed. With this declaration in 381 A.D. which would become known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the trinity as generally understood today became the official belief and teaching concerning the nature of God. Thus for the first time in history, Christianity had a doctrine of the trinity. The Platonic beliefs of “the three Cappadocians” had prevailed.

So was Theodosius a Christ-like individual looking for Biblical truth? Or was he a ruthless Emperor who enforced his view and opinion by physical force and persecution? Was he influenced by Scripture or by the bishops of Rome and Alexandria who were steeped in Greek philosophy? So had Biblical truth prevailed? Not a chance!

Theology professor Richard Hanson observes that a result of the council’s decision “was to reduce the meanings of the word ‘God’ from a very large selection of alternatives to one only,” such that “when Western man today says ‘God’ he means the one, sole exclusive [Trinitarian] God and nothing else.” — (Studies in Christian Antiquity, 1985, pp. 243, 244)

Thus, Emperor Theodosius who himself had been baptized only a year before convening the council was, like Constantine nearly six decades earlier, instrumental in establishing major Church doctrine. As historian Charles Freeman notes, “It is important to remember that Theodosius had no theological background of his own and that he put in place as dogma a formula containing intractable philosophical problems of which he would have been unaware. In effect, the emperor’s laws had silenced the debate when it was still unresolved.” — (p. 103)

It is bad enough that the three-in-one part of the trinity doctrine that came from sun and Satan worship becoming an accepted doctrine by the Church. But now it was decided that the Holy Spirit was a literal being co-equal with the Father and Son by people with little or no knowledge of theology, and three men steeped in Platonic and Greek philosophy! Why should we follow something that could never have been taught by the Apostles or the early Church since this was not decided until 400 hundred years after the cross? How could this be correct when it was never taught before this time?

Trinity Doctrine Decided by Trial and Error

This unusual chain of events is why theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson would summarize the story in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith by noting that the adoption of the trinity doctrine came as a result of “a process of theological exploration which lasted at least three hundred years … In fact it was a process of trial and error (almost of hit and miss), in which the error was by no means all confined to the unorthodox … It would be foolish to represent the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as having been achieved by any other way.” — (1980, p. 172)

They then conclude, “This was a long, confused, process whereby different schools of thought in the Church worked out for themselves, and then tried to impose on others, their answer to the question, ‘How divine is Jesus Christ?’ … If ever there was a controversy decided by the method of trial and error, it was this one.” — (p. 175)

Anglican churchman and Oxford University lecturer K. E. Kirk writes on the adoption of the trinity doctrine, “The theological and philosophical vindication of the divinity of the Spirit begins in the fourth century; we naturally turn to the writers of that period to discover what grounds they have for their belief. To our surprise, we are forced to admit that they have none …
This failure of Christian theology … to produce logical justification of the cardinal point in its trinitarian doctrine is of the greatest possible significance. We are forced, even before turning to the question of the vindication of the doctrine by experience, to ask ourselves whether theology or philosophy has ever produced any reasons why its belief should be Trinitarian.
” — (The Evolution of the Doctrine of the Trinity, published in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, A.E.J. Rawlinson, editor, 1928, pp. 221, 222)

This in brief is the amazing story of how the doctrine of the trinity came to be introduced and how those who refused to accept it came to be branded as heretics or unbelievers.

So should we base our view of God on a doctrine that is not spelled out in the Bible, that was not formalized until three centuries after the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles, that was debated and argued for decades (not to mention for centuries since), that was imposed by religious councils presided over by novices or nonbelievers and that was “decided by the method of trial and error” and a lot of bloodshed? I pray that the answer is obvious to all.

Here is a brief summary of the pagan origin of the trinity doctrine.

  1. The three in one trinity doctrine originated from paganism with the worship of the sun and Satan at Babel.
  2. Paganism entered the Church at Rome during the early centuries, including the heathen teachings about God. As a result, the heathen trinity was brought into the Catholic Church. Over the years it took on many forms.
  3. The Catholic Church officially condemned the heathen trinity of Modalistic Monarchianism and Sabbellianism in 264 A.D. at Antioch. Many Catholics have continued to teach this form of heathenism down through the years. (Some Protestant Christians still teach this form of the heathen trinity)
  4. The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. deliberately condemned the Arians for believing that Jesus had a beginning, without regard as to whether He was created or begotten. The decision of the council was that Christ was eternally begotten, without beginning. Arius said this made Christ the “unbegotten begotten One,” which was a contradiction of terms.
  5. Emperor Theodosius the Great convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture. It was decided by people with little or no knowledge of theology and “the three Cappadocians” that the Holy Spirit was a literal being, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and Son. Those disagreeing were branded as foolish madmen and heretics and were dealt with accordingly. It was in this year (381 A.D.) that the doctrine of the trinity was fully established.
  6. After the passing of the Nicene Creed, the Arians were proscribed. The uprooting of the three horns on the head of the fourth beast of Daniel 7 eradicated the Arians by force. In 538 A.D. the last of the three horns was uprooted, giving the Papacy full dominion over the Churches.
  7. The debate over the trinity doctrine continued on until the 6th century until it was firmly established as Papal dogma.

When we apply the test of the Trinity to the Absolute laws of God and that of Jesus (pbuh) and the Quran, the concept of the Trinity fails on every level. The Trinity is nothing more than false beliefs and is a design by Satan to distract people from the true beliefe in God.  

Here are some verses from the Quran about the Trinity:

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not “Trinity” : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (Quran: Surah An-Nisa,171)

Non-trinitarian Faiths

The following religions are among those that reject the doctrine of the Trinity. The list is not exhaustive but encompasses several of the major groups and religious movements. Included is a brief explanation of each group’s beliefs about the nature of God, revealing a deviation from the Trinity doctrine. This just shows us how divided the Christian faith is on their beliefs. 

Mormonism – Latter-day Saints

Founded By: Joseph Smith, Jr., 1830.

Mormons believe that God has a physical, flesh and bones, eternal, perfect body. Men have the potential to become gods as well. Jesus is God’s literal son, a separate being from God the Father and the “elder brother” of men. The Holy Spirit is also a separate being from God the Father and God the Son. The Holy Spirit is regarded as an impersonal power or spirit being. These three separate beings are “one” only in their purpose, and they make up the Godhead.

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Founded By: Charles Taze Russell, 1879. Succeeded by Joseph F. Rutherford, 1917.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God is one person, Jehovah. Jesus was Jehovah’s first creation. Jesus is not God, nor part of the Godhead. He is higher than the angels but inferior to God. Jehovah used Jesus to create the rest of the universe. Before Jesus came to earth, he was known as the archangel Michael. The Holy Spirit is an impersonal force from Jehovah, but not God.

Christian Science

Founded By: Mary Baker Eddy, 1879.

Christian Scientists believe the Trinity is life, truth, and love. As an impersonal principle, God is the only thing that truly exists. Everything else (matter) is an illusion. Jesus, though not God, is the Son of God. He was the promised Messiah but was not a deity. The Holy Spirit is divine science in the teachings of Christian Science.


(Philadelphia Church of God, Global Church of God, United Church of God)

Founded By: Herbert W. Armstrong, 1934.

Traditional Armstrongism denies a Trinity, defining God as “a family of individuals.” Original teachings say Jesus did not have a physical resurrection and the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force.


Founded By: Dr. John Thomas, 1864.

Christadelphians believe God is one indivisible unity, not three distinct persons existing in one God. They deny the divinity of Jesus, believing he is fully human and separate from God. They do not believe the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, but merely a force—the “unseen power” from God.

Oneness Pentecostals

Founded By: Frank Ewart, 1913.

Oneness Pentecostals believe that there is one God and God is one. Throughout time God manifested himself in three ways or “forms” (not persons), as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Oneness Pentecostals take issue with the Trinity doctrine chiefly for its use of the term “person.” They believe God cannot be three distinct persons, but only one being who has revealed himself in three different modes. It is important to note that Oneness Pentecostals do affirm the deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Unification Church

Founded By: Sun Myung Moon, 1954.

Unification adherents believe that God is positive and negative, male and female. The universe is God’s body, made by him. Jesus was not God, but a man. He did not experience a physical resurrection. In fact, his mission on earth failed and will be fulfilled through Sun Myung Moon, who is greater than Jesus. The Holy Spirit is feminine in nature. She collaborates with Jesus in the spirit realm to draw people to Sun Myung Moon.

Unity School of Christianity

Founded By: Charles and Myrtle Fillmore, 1889.

Similar to Christian Science, Unity adherents believe God is an unseen, impersonal principle, not a person. God is a force within everyone and everything. Jesus was only a man, not the Christ. He merely realized his spiritual identity as the Christ by practicing his potential for perfection. This is something all men can achieve. Jesus did not resurrect from the dead, but rather, he reincarnated. The Holy Spirit is the active expression of God’s law. Only the spirit part of us is real; matter is not real.

Scientology – Dianetics

Founded By: L. Ron Hubbard, 1954.

Scientology defines God as Dynamic Infinity. Jesus is not God, Savior, or Creator, nor does he have control of supernatural powers. He is usually overlooked in Dianetics. The Holy Spirit is absent from this belief system as well. Men are “thetan” – immortal, spiritual beings with limitless capabilities and powers, though often they are unaware of this potential. Scientology teaches men how to achieve “higher states of awareness and ability” through practicing Dianetics.

We will now look at the claims of Son of God, Jesus is God and the Holy Ghost separately to further disprove these claims.


The concept of the trinity has already been proven a satanic believe distracting people from the true belief in God as One with no equal. Jesus (pbuh) being the Son of God in Christianity is the eternal being who created and preserves all things. We will now discuss the theory of Jesus (pbuh) being the Son of God to see if there is any truth in this claim. It is not appropriate for anyone to speak on behalf of Jesus (pbuh) in saying he is the paternal Son of God. The only way that Christians can prove this claim is if Jesus (pbuh) himself says that he is the paternal Son of God in the original scripture and not the translation as translations are open to interpretation and corruption. We have already proven that no scripture was written down in Jesus (pbuh) lifetime and neither he or his decuples has approved or written anything so it is going be very difficult for Christians to prove their claim.

We have proven the Quran to be the most authentic between the two books so we will also be using the Quran as a second proof. We intend using the Bible and Jesus (pbuh) own words as proofs.  

In Islam the meaning of ‘Eesa (Jesus) being the Word of God is that he came into existence by the Word of Allah “Be”.  Imaam Ahmad said, “It [i.e. the creation of ‘Eesa] was with the word that Allah sent down to Mary (Maryam) when He said to him: (Be) and ‘Eesa was (i.e. came to existence) with the word ‘Be’; Allah says (what means): {Indeed, the example of ‘Eesa to Allah is like that of Aadam (Adam). He created Him from dust; then He said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was.}” (Quran 3:59)

The meaning of ‘Eesa being ‘the Spirit of God’ is what Al-Baghawi said in his Tafseer

“And he is a soul like all other souls, but Allah added it (attributed it) to Himself as an honor (for ‘Eesa). It was also said, ‘The Spirit was the blowing which Jibreel (Gabrial), may Allah exalt his mention, blew to the garment of Maryam (Mary) and she became pregnant by Allah’s Will. The blowing was called spirit because it is a wind that comes out of a spirit, and Allah attributed it to Himself because it was with His Order.’

It was also said, ‘The Spirit of God means His mercy, so ‘Eesa, may Allah exalt his mention, was a mercy to those who followed him and believed in him.’

It was also said: Spirit means revelation; glad tidings were revealed to Maryam, and the command to blow was revealed to Jibreel (Gabriel), may Allah exalt his mention, and the command to ‘Be’ was revealed to ‘Eesa and so he was. Allah says (what means): {He sends down the angels, with the inspiration (rooh) of His command}; meaning with revelation. And it was said: what is meant by spirit is Jibreel, may Allah exalt his mention; so the meaning is: and His Word which He delivered to Maryam, and He also delivered a spirit to her with His Command, who was Jibreel, may Allah exalt his mention; as Allah says (what means): {The angels and the Spirit descend therein} (Quran 97:4), meaning Jibreel descends therein, and Allah also says (what means): {Then We sent to her Our Spirit} (Quran 19:17) meaning: Jibreel.”

Ibn Hajar (RA) said:

“Allah described him (‘Eesa) as being from Him; the meaning is that he existed (as a favor and kindness) from Him, as Allah says: {And He has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth – all (as a favor and kindness) from Him.} (Quran 45:13); that is to say that Allah subjected these things which existed (as a favor and kindness) from Allah: He is the One Who made them and Who brought them into existence, with His Power and Wisdom.

It is not mentioned in the Quran that ‘Eesa was created from dust; rather, the Quran mentioned that our father Aadam, may Allah exalt his mention, was created from dust (clay), or that Allah created the human being or the people in general from clay with the fact that their father Aadam was created from clay, as in the verse in which Allah says (what means): {It is He Who created you from clay and then decreed a term and a specified time [known] to Him; then [still] you are in dispute.} (Quran 6:2)

Allah also says (what means): {And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay.} (Quran 23:12)

Allah further says (what means): {Who perfected everything which He created and began the creation of man from clay.} (Quran 32:7)

As regards the saying of Allah in resembling ‘Eesa with Aadam: {Indeed, the example of ‘Eesa to Allah is like that of Aadam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, “Be,” and he was.} (Quran 3:59); what is meant by the resemblance here is that He created him without a father, as Aadam was created without a father or mother.

Al-Qurtubi (RA) said, “The resemblance is that ‘Eesa was created without a father like Aadam, and not that ‘Eesa was created from dust. Indeed, something may be likened to something else even though there is a big difference between them if they have one same characteristic; Aadam was created from dust while ‘Eesa was not created from dust, so they are different in this regard, but Allah likened them because He created both of them without a father.”

Allah knows best.

Let us examine the birth of Jesus (pbuh) in the Quran and what Jesus (pbuh) himself said:

And mention, [O Muhammad], in the Book [the story of] Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east.

And she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel, and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man.

She said, “Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, [so leave me], if you should be fearing of Allah .”

He said, “I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy.”

She said, “How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?”

He said, “Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.’ “

So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place.

And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree. She said, “Oh, I wish I had died before this and was in oblivion, forgotten.”

But he called her from below her, “Do not grieve; your Lord has provided beneath you a stream.

And shake toward you the trunk of the palm tree; it will drop upon you ripe, fresh dates.

So eat and drink and be contented. And if you see from among humanity anyone, say, ‘Indeed, I have vowed to the Most Merciful abstention, so I will not speak today to [any] man.’ “

Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, “O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented.

O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.”

So she pointed to him. They said, “How can we speak to one who is in the cradle a child?”

[Jesus] said, “Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet. (Quran 9: 16-30)

As you can see, Jesus (pbuh) himself said he is a servant of Allah and was given the scripture and was made a prophet. Any other notion will be conflicting with every law of the Bible, the law of Jesus (pbuh) and the Quran.


Establishing who Jesus (pbuh) really is, is the key to understanding the Bible and unlocking the truth that is so hidden by those who translate the scripture. The common perception by Christians today is that Jesus (pbuh) is the paternal Son of God, the begotten Son and the one and only Son of God. This is what the early church wanted us to believe but we will uncover the truth of this claim. As much as satan tries to hide the truth about God, God always shows us the truth but it is for us to look carefully and at the same time we must be very weary of satan’s followers who will try and mislead us.

Jesus (pbuh) can only be a son of God under three circumstances.

  1. Sexual Intercourse – If he was conceived through sexual intercourse (sperm has to pass from the male organ to the female organ for a child to be conceived) by his parents. In this case Jesus (pbuh) did not have a paternal father. He only had a mother. Since Mary remained a virgin even after Jesus (pbuh) was born, tells us that there was no sexual intercourse. Nowhere in the bible do we see that God came as a human being and had sexual intercourse with Mary. The bible states the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. The original Greek words used in the original text is ἐπί σκιά According to Bible Hub, these are the meanings:
  • epi: on, upon
  • Original Word: ἐπί
    Part of Speech: Preposition
    Transliteration: epi
    Phonetic Spelling: (ep-ee’)
    Definition: on, upon
    Usage: on, to, against, on the basis of, at.
  • skia: shadow
  • Original Word: σκιά, ᾶς, ἡ
    Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
    Transliteration: skia
    Phonetic Spelling: (skee’-ah)
    Definition: shadow
    Usage: a shadow, shade, thick darkness, an outline.

As you can see, neither word epi or skia which means upon and shadow can or does imply sexual intercourse. Christians twist the words to give their own interpretation of the meanings.

  1. Adoption – We know that God did not adopt Jesus (pbuh)
  2. Metaphor– son is used as a metaphor.

A metaphor is the only rational use of the word son. The word son is used to denote the love God has for those he raised in honor and gave special status. Hence, you will see that several prophets in the bible like Ephram, Israel, Adam, Soloman and many others were called “son of God” we all understand this usage as a metaphor so why would Christians think son in Jesus (pbuh) case is used paternally?

One very important point we must understand is that God sent many prophets and messengers from the beginning of time and many are mentioned in the Bible.

God also sent 5 books of revelation through various  messengers namely Abraham (pbuh), David (pbuh), Moses (pbuh), Jesus (pbuh) and finally the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). If God sent these books and revelations then surely all of them should teach exactly the same message? Surely if any one of the books teachers anything in contrast to the others then that book cannot be from God. Our current topic of discussion is Jesus (pbuh) being called the Son of God. Let us see how true this really is.

One commonality we find with Jesus (pbuh) compared to previous prophets and messengers is when he start his ministry. When God first spoke to Abraham (pbuh) he was approximately 25 or slightly older and this is when he became aware that he was a messenger of God and a prophet. God spoke to Moses (pbuh) from the burning bush when he was about 80 years old. God gave Muhammad (pbuh) his revelation of the Quran at the age of 40. We also see that Jesus (pbuh) only started his ministry at the age of 30. Looking back at all the prophets and messengers with the exception of Adam, they all only received God’s words from a certain age or certain time.

Unlike Muslims who read the original text in the Quran as it was revealed,  Christians are at a huge disadvantage as they cannot read the original scripture and so they are totally and utterly reliant on the translators and hope that they are honest enough to translate the truth. One has to wonder why the Church did not put the original text into the bible as it was written in the scripture and Christians should learn how to read and understand the original text as Jews and Muslims do? The only answer to this is that then they cannot manipulate the meanings and translations.

When both Jews and Muslims read their respective books, they read it in the original text as it was revealed as the word of God. As soon as you translate the text then it is that translators understanding and opinion and not God’s word. If you have a look at all the different bibles, you will find that everyone has a slightly different translation and in certain cases the translations vary quite a lot. Those are all interpretations of the meanings according to the translator. We also find the same in the Torah and the Quran translations but in these books the meanings are not very different from each translator and there is no room for deception as Jews and Muslims can quickly identify any deception in translations but this is not the case with the Bible.

We will now show you why there is so much controversy about who Jesus (pbuh) is and this is all due to the fact that Christians cannot read the original text.  

We will start off with two verses from the Quran which tells us about Jesus (pbuh) and the Gospel God sent him with.

Verily, We did send down the Torah [to Musa (Moses)], therein was guidance and light, by which the Prophets, who submitted themselves to Allah’s Will, judged the Jews. And the rabbis and the priests [too judged the Jews by the Torah after those Prophets] for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah’s Book, and they were witnesses thereto. Therefore fear not men but fear Me (O Jews) and sell not My Verses for a miserable price. And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun (i.e. disbelievers – of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah’s Laws). (Quran 5:44)

And in their footsteps, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah that had come before him, and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Torah that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqun (the pious). (Quran 5:46)

Take special note to the highlighted text of the above Quran verses and I will prove the Jesus (pbuh) confirms exactly what the Quran states when we get to the section of who Jesus (pbuh) was, and to whom he came.

The Quran states:

  • God sent him
  • He was a guidance and a light
  • He was a Prophet and messenger of God
  • He submitted himself to God’s Will.
  • He judged the Jews
  • Jesus confirmed the Torah
  • God gave him the Gospel

The word “son” appears many times throughout the Old and New Testament of the Bible. However, there are a number of different words in the Bible that have been translated into other languages and then finally into English as the word son. Some of them include the Hebrew words “bar” and “ben”. When the term “son” is used in Scripture language it can imply almost any kind of descent or succession, as Ben Shanah, “son of a year,” i.e. a year old; Ben Kesheth, “son of a bow,” i.e. an arrow. The word bar is often found in the New Testament in composition, as Bar-timaeus. The word son is used to describe humans and angels.

In the New Testament of the Bible, “the Son” refers to the Messiah as the love God had for him. – the Ultimate Messenger to the Jews. Son also means Servant or mesenger of God which is the meaning of Messiah and the Bible tells us about the meaning of sons. Similarly, Father in the Bible does not mean a paternal father but, in the Bible it means The Creator, the Father of all creation.

The New Testament and Old Testament in Greek uses the words Teknon τέκνον and Huios υἱός which is translated to son in English. These are the words used in the original scripture in reference to son of God. Though the church tries to teach that Jesus (pbuh) is God when the original Greek words does not state that at all and the church cannot manipulate the original Greek word meanings.  You will notice that ancient Greek text does not have any capital letters so why then does the Bible translators spell Son with a capital S when there are no capital letters in the original?

HUIOS υἱός

Definition according to biblestudytools.com

  1. a son
    1. rarely used for the young of animals
    2. generally used of the offspring of men
    3. in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)
    4. in a wider sense, a descendant, one of the posterity of any one,
      1. the children of Israel
      2. sons of Abraham
    5. used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower
      1. a pupil
  2. son of man
    1. term describing man, carrying the connotation of weakness and mortality
    2. son of man, symbolically denotes the fifth kingdom in Daniel 7:13 and by this term its humanity is indicated in contrast with the barbarity and ferocity of the four preceding kingdoms (the Babylonian, the Median and the Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman) typified by the four beasts. In the book of Enoch (2nd Century) it is used of Christ.
    3. used by Christ himself, doubtless in order that he might intimate his Messiahship and also that he might designate himself as the head of the human family, the man, the one who both furnished the pattern of the perfect man and acted on behalf of all mankind. Christ seems to have preferred this to the other Messianic titles, because by its lowliness it was least suited to foster the expectation of an earthly Messiah in royal splendour.
  3. son of God
    1. used to describe Adam (Lk. 3:
    1. used to describe those who are born again (Lk. 20:
  4. and of angels and of Jesus Christ
    1. of those whom God esteems as sons, whom he loves, protects and benefits above others
      1. in the OT used of the Jews
      2. in the NT of Christians
      3. those whose character God, as a loving father, shapes by chastisements (Heb. 12:5-
    1. those who revere God as their father, the pious worshippers of God, those who in character and life resemble God, those who are governed by the Spirit of God, repose the same calm and joyful trust in God which children do in their parents (Rom. 8:14, Gal. 3:26 ), and hereafter in the blessedness and glory of the life eternal will openly wear this dignity of the sons of God. Term used preeminently of Jesus Christ, as enjoying the supreme love of God, united to him in affectionate intimacy, privy to his saving councils, obedient to the Father’s will in all his acts
Word Usage – Total: 381



TEKNON τέκνον

Definition according to biblestudytools.com

  1. offspring, children
    1. child
    2. a male child, a son
    3. metaph.
      1. the name transferred to that intimate and reciprocal relationship formed between men by the bonds of love, friendship, trust, just as between parents and children
      2. in affectionate address, such as patrons, helpers, teachers and the like employ: my child
      3. in the NT, pupils or disciples are called children of their teachers, because the latter by their instruction nourish the minds of their pupils and mould their characters
      4. children of God: in the OT of “the people of Israel” as especially dear to God, in the NT, in Paul’s writings, all who are led by the Spirit of God and thus closely related to God
      5. children of the devil: those who in thought and action are prompted by the devil, and so reflect his character
    4. metaph.
      1. of anything who depends upon it, is possessed by a desire or affection for it, is addicted to it
      2. one who is liable to any fate 1c
    5. thus children of a city: it citizens and inhabitants
      1. the votaries of wisdom, those souls who have, as it were, been nurtured and moulded by wisdom
      2. cursed children, exposed to a curse and doomed to God’s wrath or penalty
NAS Word Usage – Total: 100

As you can see from both meanings, neither of the two meanings denotes the literal or paternal son of God.

The Bible refers to Jesus (pbuh) as the Christ (pbuh) and it also refers to Jesus (pbuh) as the Messiah. Christians often refer to John 10:24 saying that Christ and Messiah means God and that is why the Jews was stoning him because Jesus (pbuh) admitted that he was God by saying he was the Christ, the Messiah. Let us see what is the meaning of Christ and Messiah from the Bible dictionary.


Dictionaries – Easton’s Bible Dictionary – Christ

Christ [N] [H] [S]

Anointed, the Greek translation of the Hebrew word rendered “Messiah” (q.v.), the official title of our Lord, occurring five hundred and fourteen times in the New Testament. It denotes that he was anointed or consecrated to his great redemptive work as Prophet, Priest, and King of his people. He is Jesus the Christ ( Acts 17:3 ; 18:5 ; Matthew 22:42 ), the Anointed One. He is thus spoken of by ( Isaiah 61:1 ), and by ( Daniel 9:24-26 ), who styles him “Messiah the Prince.”

The Messiah is the same person as “the seed of the woman” ( Genesis 3:15 ), “the seed of Abraham” ( Genesis 22:18 ), the “Prophet like unto Moses” ( Deuteronomy 18:15 ), “the priest after the order of Melchizedek” ( Psalms 110:4 ), “the rod out of the stem of Jesse” ( Isaiah 11:1 Isaiah 11:10 ), the “Immanuel,” the virgin’s son ( Isaiah 7:14 ), “the branch of Jehovah” ( Isaiah 4:2 ), and “the messenger of the covenant” ( Malachi 3:1 ). This is he “of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write.” The Old Testament Scripture is full of prophetic declarations regarding the Great Deliverer and the work he was to accomplish. Jesus the Christ is Jesus the Great Deliverer, the Anointed One, the Saviour of men. This name denotes that Jesus was divinely appointed, commissioned, and accredited as the Saviour of men ( Hebrews 5:4 ; Isaiah 11:2-4 ; 49:6 ; John 5:37 ; Acts 2:22 ).

To believe that “Jesus is the Christ” is to believe that he is the Anointed, the Messiah of the prophets, the Saviour sent of God, that he was, in a word, what he claimed to be. This is to believe the gospel, by the faith of which alone men can be brought unto God. That Jesus is the Christ is the testimony of God, and the faith of this constitutes a Christian ( 1 Corinthians 12:3 ; 1 John 5:1 ).

Note the bible dictionary state “It denotes that he was anointed or consecrated to his great redemptive work as Prophet, Priest, and King of his people. He is Jesus the Christ” It also says that he is a messenger of God.

Nothing in the meaning of Christ means Son of God or meaning he is God.

From this great honour that God bestowed on Jesus (pbuh) we can see why Jesus (pbuh), like Adam and many other prophets and messengers are referred to as son of God. Son is used purely as metaphor.

From the meaning highlighted, you can clearly see that the very meaning of Messiah is someone who is designated, appointed and given authority for a specific task the same as the meaning of Christ. This shows that Jesus (pbuh) was a messenger, a prophet of God and not God as God is not appointed and does not take authorisation from anyone. Both the Bible dictionary and the Quran states that Christ/Messiah is a messenger, a prophet of God.

Jesus (pbuh) was sent by God as the Messiah, the messenger of God and God anointed him and gave him authority and honour and Luke, Mark, Matthew and John confirms this fact below that Jesus (pbuh) was the Messiah, not the Son, nor God himself;

Luke 9:18-20 

Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah

18 Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?”

19 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.”

20 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Peter answered, “God’s Messiah.”

We also find Jesus confirming that he is the Christ in John 4:25-26 NIV

25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

Then yet again Jesus (pbuh) confirms he is the Messiah in Mark 14:60-62

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

In these verses you can also see the context of the son is the same as Messiah. This is the same as saying “Are you the Messenger, the servant of the Blessed One? If you try and see the son as meaning a literal son then the words will conflict with each other as Messiah which means an anointed prophet or messenger derived from the meanings above. Now look at how deceitful these translators are by making the “S” in Son a capital letter to try and prove another meaning when there are no capital in Ancient Greek text. These type of deceitful methods are prevalent throughout the bible.

The below verse will show you that Jesus (pbuh) being the Christ is definitely not a literal or paternal son of God.

This verse tells you two things: 1. Jesus is the Messiah which we know is a messenger of God and 2. Jesus genealogy is from David and from Abraham. If Jesus was the literal son of God then he should not have a genealogy as we see. He should only come from God and not descend from other prophets. The fact that he descended from other prophets also tells you that he is also a prophet. John also confirms the same genealogy.

The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:

This verse tells you two things: 1. Jesus is the Messiah which we know is a messenger of God and 2. Jesus genealogy is from David and from Abraham. If Jesus was the literal son of God then he should not have a genealogy as we see. He should only come from God and not descend from other prophets. The fact that he descended from other prophets also tells you that he is also a prophet. John also confirms the same genealogy.

John 7:42

42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?”

Jesus also did not want people to know he was the Christ.

Matthew 16:20

20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

There are many more verses in the bible that speaks of the Christ;

Luke 23:2

And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.”

John 1:41

41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ).

Luke 2:25-30

25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:

29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
    you may now dismiss[a] your servant in peace.
30 For my eyes have seen your salvation,

The above verses tell us three things:

  1. Jesus (pbuh) was the Lord’s Christ. From the meaning of Christ, we have seen it means prophet and messenger.
  2. It also confirms that Jesus (pbuh) is the Lord’s bond-servant, a servant of God as previously stated.
  3. Jesus (pbuh) would carry out God’s word.
  4. Jesus (pbuh) was their salvation, the saviour to the Jews who were lost. He was sent to the Jews as you will later see to whom he was sent.

I know what you are thinking, you want to now say, “you see, Jesus is the salvation to the word” he came to die to save us” You would be dead wrong in this regard. The Salvation is God’s word, the Gospel he gave to Jesus (pbuh) so that the Jews may be saved through Jesus (pbuh) meaning what he taught them came from God to bring them back onto the straight path. Therein is the salvation for us and not what Christians think that he came to die for them. Take away God’s word, the Gospel and see if there is still salvation. Just think about it, If Jesus (pbuh) never taught the Gospel then what would they have learned? How would he have brought the Jews who have lost their way back to the straight path? If Jesus (pbuh) just told the Jews believe in me, I am the life and the way, your salvation and the only way to the Father without teaching them anything would they have received his salvation or would they still be lost even though they believe that he is their salvation? So this proves that it is God’s word, his Gospel that Jesus (pbuh) taught  them. So he was the only way and life back then. No one else could offer them the salvation they needed back then.

Jesus (pbuh) is confirmed as the Messiah, the Christ in the Quran as well, he is confirmed to be the light to his people. Remember the Quran verse, God sent him as a light. What is a light in darkness? It is salvation to those who are in darkness, those who have lost their way, it is the truth, the path to God through Jesus Christ (pbuh), God’s anointed servant and Messenger.

What else could “God’s Messiah” mean other than God’s servant, messenger and prophet? The very meaning of Messiah according to the bible dictionary  above show that Messiah is a messenger or servant and Jesus (pbuh) said he was sent by God and came to serve God.

Anything contrary to this will be in conflict and will be contradicting the fact that Jesus (pbuh) is the Christ, the Messiah.

Jesus (pbuh) himself confirms in the Bible that he was a servant of God when he says he was sent by God as servants and messengers/ prophets are sent by God. Jesus (pbuh) confirms that he has come to serve and not be served.

Mark 10:26-28 – 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Notice that in verse 28 Jesus (pbuh) refers to himself as “son of man” and that he came to serve. What are peopled called that serve others? A servant. What did Jesus (pbuh) mean when he says “give his life for ransom for many”? It means he has sacrificed his life in the deliverance of God’s message to the people of Israel whom he was sent to. Jesus (pbuh) did nothing else but spread God’s word and do good works in God’s name. For this he was ridiculed, stoned and insulted but he endured and never gave up his message up to the point when they wanted to kill him. This is his sacrifice that he refers to. His sacrifice also means that he gave his life in the deliverance of God’s word so that people can believe in God in the correct manner even if it means they would try and kill him for carrying out his duty to God. This is the ultimate sacrifice anyone can do for God. A messenger who is so dedicated to God that he would not give up even if it means they will kill him. 

It does not in any way refer to Jesus (pbuh) dying for peoples sins as Christians would want to believe. All messengers of God sacrifice their lives in service of God. Even the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was stoned and ridiculed and they tried to kill him on many occasions, they tried to bribe him and give him power and authority in the land but he was not interested. His only mission was his duty to God, the same as Jesus (pbuh), Moses (pbuh) Abraham (pbuh) The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also gave their lives for ransom for many and so did many other messengers. The fact that the Jews tried to crucify Jesus (pbuh) does not in any way mean that was the reason God sent him. The circumstance that resulted from the deliverance of God’s message and the denial of Jesus (pbuh) by his people was what led to the Jews wanting to kill him. As much as I want to continue explaining the crucifixion and if Jesus (pbuh) did die on the cross, this is not the time nor the topic. We will be addressing this as we proceed later on.  

Matthew 5:9  “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Peacemakers are messengers of God who was sent to bring peace with God’s message. Jesus (pbuh) was also a peacemaker as he brought the message of peace and as you have seen, son here refers to servant of God. So this verse will read as follows:

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called servants or messengers of God.

In the below verses, you can see more clear evidence of that Jesus (pbuh) was peacemaker and a servant of God:

Luke 4:18-19

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

This is also confirmed in the Quran. So is Jesus (pbuh) not the light to his people as the Quran states? Look at what Jesus (pbuh) is saying. “He has anointed me”, meaning he is the Messiah. According to the meaning, anointed is one who is raised to honour and who is given authority. So God has raised Jesus (pbuh) to honour and God has given him the Good News which is the Gospel, God’s word. Given authority means God has given Jesus (pbuh) the power do perform miracles like he did with Moses (pbuh) and other messengers and God has given him the authority to forgive sins. Jesus (pbuh) tells them their sins are forgiven as God will forgive them for whatever they have done in the past if they come into the light. Messengers and prophets serve God. God cannot serve himself. Surely if Jesus (pbuh) was really the literal son of God or as you say, God himself, then this verse will read that Jesus (pbuh) came to be served and not the other way around?

Allah Almighty also explains servants of God in the Glorious Quran: “…..servants raised to honor. (Quran 21:26)

Here you can see God in the Quran also giving honor to Jesus (pbuh) same as the bible.

When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how thou didst shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and didst blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and thou didst heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and how thou didst raise the dead by My permission; and how I restrained the Children of Israel from (harming) thee when thou camest unto them with clear proofs, and those of them who disbelieved exclaimed: This is naught else than mere magic; (Quran 5:110)

Let us show you why Christians are so deceived by the dishonest Bible translators who have many times purposefully used incorrect words in their translations to push their agenda and later the translation is changed when they can no longer justify it.


King James Bible

Unto you first God, having raised up His Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Have a look at the above verse. See how they use the word “Son” and they make the “S” capital when there are no capitals in the original text. Note they also say God’s Son by trying to prove God has a Son when he has none. Now see the same verse in the New King James Bible;

New King James Version

To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”

The Quran confirms Jesus (pbuh) as a servant, messenger of God as well.

All other translation of this verse now state “Servant” and not “Son”. The funny thing is that they have not changed all other places in the Bible that refers to Jesus (pbuh) as “Son” and thus contradicting each other. We now find that Jesus is a son of God, son of man and servant of God. Two of these are true, Jesus (pbuh) is the son of man as he is human and his mother is human and Jesus (pbuh) is a servant of God as he also confirms, the very words Christ and Messiah proves this. So the only way to interpret son of God is that it is not meant in the literal sense but refers to servent of God and Messiah in which case all three scenarios are correct. This means that Jesus (pbuh) cannot be a son of man and the son of God in the literal sense as that would mean that Mary and God shared a son together. Do you realise what that means? Therefore, the myth or rather the satanic beliefs of Father and Son in the Trinity is proven false. Jesus (pbuh) himself proves that he is only a servant of God.

References & Notes

1  Blenkinsopp 1998, p. 184.

2  Rogerson 2003, pp. 153–54.

3  Coggins 2003, p. 282.

4  Grabbe 2003, pp. 213–14.

5  Miller 1987, pp. 10–11.

6 Crenshaw 2010, p. 5.

7  page 1, Blenkinsopp, Joseph (1992). The Pentateuch: An introduction to the first five books of the Bible. Anchor BibleReference Library. New York: Dou bleday. ISBN 978-0-385-41207-0.

8  Finkelstein, I., Silberman, NA., The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, p.68

9  McDermott, John J. (2002). Reading the Pentateuch: a historical introduction. Pauline Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-8091-4082-4. Retrieved 2010-10-03.


  1. These criteria are the criterion of dissimilarity; the criterion of embarrassment; the criterion of multiple attestation; the criterion of cultural and historical congruency; the criterion of “Aramaisms”.
  2. Sanders, E. P. (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin. ISBN978-0-14-192822-7Archived from the original on 2017-04-18. Retrieved 2017-08-29.
  3. “Markan priority” is based on several lines of reasoning:
    • Content: Mark is simpler than Matthew and Luke; it is seen as unlikely that Mark would eliminate the missing stories;
    • Mistakes: Mark makes mistakes with history, the Hebrew scriptures and with Jewish law, which Matthew and Luke appear to have corrected; it is seen as unlikely that Mark would have deliberately changed correct information to incorrect;
    • Wording: Mark’s language is less literary than that of Matthew and Luke; it seems unlikely that Mark would have downgraded this language;
    • Length: Mark is shorter than Matthew or Luke, yet his individual stories are longer; it is considered unlikely that he would have shortened one of the others overall, while lengthening the pericopes;
    • “Editorial fatigue”: Editorial fatigue is the phenomenon whereby an editor introduces inconsistencies while adapting a source, resulting in errors; Matthew and Luke make such errors, but Mark does not.
      See Smith (2011), pages 12-16.
  4. Matthew and Luke both use Mark, composed around 70, as a source, and both show a knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 (Matthew 22:1-10 and Luke 19:43 and 21:20). These provide an earliest possible date for both gospels; for end-dates, the epistles of Ignatius of Antiochshow a familiarity with the gospel of Matthew, and as Ignatius died during the reign of the Emperor Trajan (r.98-117), Matthew cannot have been written later than this; and Acts, which scholars agree was written by the author of Luke, shows no awareness of the letters of Paul, which were circulating widely by the end of the 1st century. See Sim (2008), pages 15-16, and Reddish (2011), pages 144-145.
  5. The existence of the Q source is a hypothesis linked to the most popular explanation of the synoptic problem; other explanations of that problem do away with the need for Q, but are less widely accepted. See Delbert Burkett, “Rethinking the Gospel Sources: The unity or plurality of Q” (Volume 2), page 1.
  6. For the circumstances which led to the tradition, and the reasons why the majority of modern scholars reject it, see Lindars, Edwards & Court 2000, pp. 41–42


  • Perkins 1998, p. 241.
  • Reddish 2011, pp. 108,144.
  • Lincoln 2005, p. 18
  • Reddish 2011, pp. 13,42.
  • Lincoln 2004, p. 133.
  • Dunn 2005, p. 174.
  • Reddish 2011, p. 22.
  • Sanders 1995, pp. 6.
  • Petersen 2010, p. 51.
  • Culpepper 1999, p. 66.
  • Perkins 1998, p. 241.
  • Reddish 2011, pp. 108, 144.
  • Lincoln 2005, p. 18.
  • Reddish 2011, pp. 13, 42
  • Lindars, Edwards & Court 2000, p. 41.
  • Porter 2006, p. 185
  • Craig Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology,” Theological Studies 54 (1993) p. 5,
  • Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of Canonical Gospels pg 42 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).
  • Fire of Mercy, Heart of the Word (Vol. II): Meditations on the Gospel According to St. Matthew – Dr Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis, Ignatius Press, Introduction
  • Grant, Robert M., “A Historical Introduction to the New Testament” (Harper and Row, 1963) “Archived copy”. Archived from the originalon 2010-06-21. Retrieved 2009-11-24.
  • In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman(a secular agnostic) wrote: “He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees” B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
  • Robert M. Price(an atheist) who denies the existence of Jesus agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price “Jesus at the Vanishing Point” in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 0830838686 page 61
  • Michael Grant(a classicist) states that “In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.” in Jesus by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
  • Richard A. Burridge states: “There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
  • Powell, Mark Allan (1998). Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 181ISBN978-0-664-25703-3.
  • Jesus Rememberedby James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these “two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent”.
  • Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesusby William R. Herzog (Jul 4, 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1–6
  • Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145ISBN978-0-06-061662-5. That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus…agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.
  • Who is Jesus? Answers to your questions about the historical Jesus, by John Dominic Crossan, Richard G. Watts (Westminster John Knox Press 1999), page 108
  • James G. D. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, (Eerdmans, 2003) page 779-781.
  • John Edmunds, 1855 The seven sayings of Christ on the crossThomas Hatchford Publishers, London, page 26
  • Stagg, Evelyn and Frank. Woman in the World of Jesus.Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978 ISBN 0-664-24195-6
  • Funk, Robert W.and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. 1998. “Empty Tomb, Appearances & Ascension” p. 449-495.
  • Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: Luke 24:51is missing in some important early witnesses, Acts 1 varies between the Alexandrian and Western versions.
  • Sanders, E. P. (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin. ISBN978-0-14-192822-7Archived from the original on 2017-04-18. Retrieved 2017-08-29.
  • “The Synoptic Gospels, then, are the primary sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus” “Jesus Christ.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 27 November 2010 [1]Archived 2015-05-03 at the Wayback Machine.
  • Vermes, Geza. The authentic gospel of Jesus. London, Penguin Books. 2004.
  • Keener, Craig S. “Otho: A Targeted Comparison of Suetonius’s Biography and Tacitus’s History, with Implications for the Gospels’ Historical Reliability.” Bulletin for Biblical Research (2011): 331-355. Penn State University Press. See Abstract. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26424373?seq=1
  • Licona, Michael R. Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography. Oxford University Press, 2016. p.3
  • Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperSanFrancisco, 2005, pp. 88–89.
  • Paul Rhodes Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition.(2008, Baker Academic). 309-262. ISBN 978-0801031144
  • Fredriksen 2000, p. unpaginated.
  • Reid 1996, p. 18.
  • Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey(2nd Edition).425.
  • Craig L. Blomberg, Historical Reliability of the Gospels(1986, Inter-Varsity Press).19–72.ISBN 978-0830828074
  • Paul Rhodes Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. (2008, Baker Academic).237–308. ISBN978-0801031144
  • Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey(2nd Edition).424.
  • Tuckett 2000, p. 522.
  • Graham Stanton, Jesus and Gospel.192.
  • Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN0-86012-006-6 pages 730–741
  • Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. 117.
  • James D.G. Dunn, “Messianic Ideas and Their Influence on the Jesus of History,” in The Messiah, ed. James H. Charlesworth. pp. 371–372. Cf. James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered.
  • Archived2014-04-04 at the Wayback Machine, retrieved 15nov2010
  • Yamazaki-Ransom 2010, p. 79.
  • Reddish 2011, p. 17.
  • Burkett 2002, pp. 124–25.
  • Valantasis, Bleyle & Haugh 2009, p. 7.
  • Smith 2011, p. 2.
  • Martens 2004, p. 100.
  • Valantasis, Bleyle & Haugh 2009, p. 7,10,14.
  • Valantasis, Bleyle & Haugh 2009, p. 11.
  • Jump up to:ab c Smith 2011, p. 7.
  • Valantasis, Bleyle & Haugh 2009, p. 19.
  • Eve 2014, p. 135.
  • Bellinzoni 2016, p. 336.
  • Wilson 2014, p. 135.
  • Bauckham 2008, p. 290.
  • Köstenberger, Bock & Chatraw 2014, p. 137.
  • Blomberg 2009, p. 97.
  • Puskas & Robbins 2011, p. 86,89.
  • Reddish 2011, p. 27,29.
  • Tiwald 2020, p. 13-14.
  • Isaak 2011, p. 108.
  • Valantasis, Bleyle & Haugh 2009, p. 14.
  • Yu Chui Siang Lau 2010, p. 159.
  • Valantasis, Bleyle & Haugh 2009, p. 82-83.
  • Moyise 2011, p. 33.
  • Kimball 1994, p. 48.
  • Theissen & Merz 1998, p. 24-27.
  • Reddish 2011, p. 74.
  • Schroter 2010, p. 273-274.
  • Williamson 1983, p. 17-18.
  • Winn 2018, p. 45.
  • Strickland & Young 2017, p. 3.
  • Nelligan 2015, p. xivxv.
  • Casey 1999, p. 86,136.
  • Reddish 2011, p. 144.
  • Sim 2008, p. 15-16.
  • Theissen & Merz 1998, p. 32.
  • Green 1995, pp. 16–17.
  • Burkett 2002, p. 174.
  • Ehrman 2005, pp. 172,235.
  • Augsburger 2004, p. unpaginated.
  • Moyise2011 2012, p. 87.
  • Burkett 2009, p. 33ff.
  • Gillman 2007, p. 1112.
  • Strecker 2012, p. 312-313.
  • Burkett 2009, p. 46.
  • Powell 1998, p. 38.
  • Jones 2011, p. 10,17.
  • Burkett 2002, p. 214.
  • Lindars, Edwards & Court 2000, p. 41.
  • Lincoln 2005, p. 18.
  • Aune 2003, p. 243.
  • Edwards 2015, p. ix.
  • Dunn 2011, p. 73.
  • Dunn 2011, p. 76-77.
  • Burkett 2019, p. 218.
  • Dunn 2011, p. 72-73.
  • Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus(2005), p. 46
  • Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and                        Why. HarperCollins, 2005, p. 265. ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4
  • Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus Ch 3, (2005)
  • Strobel, Lee. “The Case for Christ”. 1998. Chapter three, when quoting biblic scholar Bruce Metzger
  • Guy D. Nave, The role and function of repentance in Luke-Acts, 194
  • John Shelby Spong, “The Continuing Christian Need for Judaism”, Christian CenturySeptember 26, 1979, p. 918. see “Archived copy”. Archived from the originalon 2010-06-15. Retrieved 2010-10-13.
  • Feminist companion to the New Testament and early Christian writings, Volume 5, by Amy-Jill Levine, Marianne Blickenstaff, pg. 175
  • “NETBible: John 7”. Bible.org. Archivedfrom the original on 2007-02-28. Retrieved 2009-10-17. See note 139 on that page.
  • Keith, Chris (2008). “Recent and Previous Research on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7.53–8.11)”. Currents in Biblical Research6(3): 377–404. doi:1177/1476993X07084793.
  • ‘Pericope adulterae’, in FL Cross (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
  • Ehrman 2006, p. 166
  • Bruce Metzger”A Textual Commentary on the New Testament”, Second Edition, 1994, German Bible Society
  • Bruce, F.F. (1981). P 14. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?. InterVarsity Press
  • Aland and B. Aland, “The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions & to the Theory & Practice of Modern Textual Criticism“, 1995, op. cit., p. 29-30.
  • Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, Ch 3, (2005)
  • Heide, K. Martin (2011). “Assessing the Stability of the Transmitted Texts of the New Testament and the Shepherd of Hermas”. In Stewart, Robert B. (ed.). Bart D. Ehrman & Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue: The Reliability of the New Testament. Fortress Press. pp. 134–138, 157–158. ISBN9780800697730.
  • Meier 200.
  • Brown, Raymond Edward(1999-05-18). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library). Yale University Press. p. 36ISBN 978-0-300-14008-8.
  • D Davies and E. P. Sanders, ‘Jesus from the Jewish point of view’, in The Cambridge History of Judaismed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984.
  • Vermes, Géza(2006-11-02). The Nativity: History and Legend. Penguin Books Ltd. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-14-102446-2.
  • Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Sanders discusses both birth narratives in detail, contrasts them, and judges them not historical on pp. 85–88.
  • Marcus Borg, ‘The Meaning of the Birth Stories’ in Marcus Borg, N T Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions(Harper One, 1999) page 179: “I (and most mainline scholars) do not see these stories as historically factual.”
  • Interpreting Gospel Narratives: Scenes, People, and Theologyby Timothy Wiarda 2010 ISBN 0-8054-4843-8 75–78
  • Jesus, the Christ: Contemporary Perspectivesby Brennan R. Hill 2004 ISBN 1-58595-303-2 89
  • The Gospel of Lukeby Timothy Johnson 1992 ISBN 0-8146-5805-9 72
  • Recovering Jesus: the witness of the New TestamentThomas R. Yoder Neufeld 2007 ISBN 1-58743-202-1 111
  • Warren, Tony. “Is there a Contradiction in the Genealogies of Luke and Matthew?”Archived2012-11-14 at the Wayback Machine Created 2/2/95 / Last Modified 1/24/00. Accessed 4 May 2008.
  • Geza Vermes, The Nativity: History and Legend, (Penguin, 2006), page 42.
  • Jump up to:ab Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0-86012-006-6 731
  • Blackburn, BonnieHolford-Strevens, Leofranc(2003). The Oxford companion to the Year: An exploration of calendar customs and time-reckoning. Oxford University Press. p. 770ISBN 978-0-19-214231-3.
  • Raymond E. Brown, An Adult Christ at Christmas: Essays on the Three Biblical Christmas StoriesArchived 2016-08-21 at the Wayback Machine, (Liturgical Press, 1988), p. 17.
    For example, Dunn, James Douglas Grant (2003), Jesus Remembered, Eerdmans. p. 344. ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 Similarly, Erich S. Gruen, ‘The expansion of the empire under Augustus’, in The Cambridge ancient history Volume 10, p. 157.
    Geza Vermes, The Nativity, Penguin 2006, p. 96.
    D. Davies and E. P. Sanders, ‘Jesus from the Jewish point of view’, in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984
    Anthony Harvey, A Companion to the New Testament (Cambridge University Press 2004), p. 221.
    Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Doubleday, 1991, v. 1, p. 213.
    Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. London: G. Chapman, 1977, p. 554.
    A. N. Sherwin-White, pp. 166, 167.
    Fergus Millar Millar, Fergus (1990). “Reflections on the trials of Jesus”. A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOT Suppl. 100) [eds. P.R. Davies and R.T. White]. Sheffield: JSOT Press. pp. 355–81. repr. in Millar, Fergus(2006), “The Greek World, the Jews, and the East”, Rome, the Greek World and the East, 3: 139–163
  • Meier 2016, p. 366.
  • Meier 2016, p. 369-370.
  • Smith 2010, p. 440.
  • Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p.114.
  • Alfred EdersheimLife and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 5.xiv Archived 2017-12-22 at the Wayback Machine, 1883.
  • Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 5.xivArchived 2017-12-22 at the Wayback Machine, 1883.
  • Inter-Varsity PressNew Bible Commentary 21st Century edition p1071
Scroll to Top