Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
From: <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:39:40 EST
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In response to Richard Pitts, on questions relating to Jesus (sorry I cannot
include your exact statements, because my computer terminal does not
have such facilities for on-line responses on the Net):

        Your statements concerning Jesus's claim of Godhood, etc. are based on
        the New Testament books - all of which are PSEUDOPIGRAPHIC (I have
        provided, in a separate reply, the references to this proven theory).
        As such, the statements which are attributed to Jesus simply
        may not be true. Biblical scholars all agree that none of the gospels
        were written by actual disciples (not even Matthew's and John's), and
        they were ALL written after the failed Revolt of 66-70 c.e. Remember
        that most of the disciples were either killed or died, between the
        period of 33-70 c.e. (again let me remind you that John the Elder, the
        supposed writer of John's gospel was not John-the disciple of Jesus).
        As I mentioned in an earlier response on the above subject, what we
        have today in the NT are nothing more than the edited versions of
        Pauline version of christianity. In that composition books/epistles
        were attributed to some original disciples, while in reality the
        materials therein had nothing to do with what they preached or
        delivered. That is why, we find, Paul, the self-appointed disciple,
        in several places in the NT accused the original disciples of teaching
        ANOTHER gospel, which was totally different than his version. It is
        very clear to see that on the fundamental doctrine, Paul's version
        deviated from that preached by real, original disciples of Jesus, who
        heard firsthand from their master, Jesus, the son of Mary. The original
        disciples had  practiced their religion, which was not different from
       from the Jews (except in their recognition of Jesus, as a Jewish Messiah
        and a Prophet of God, NOT a son of God, nor a God) in the Jerusalem
        Temple.

        During the period of canonization of the books in the 4th century,
        more than 240 books were destroyed/banned, which did not agree with
        Pauline version. In that list of forbidden books were books, which
        included the writings of the original disciples. Biblical scholars
        have shown that, based on latest findings in the Naag Hamadi area
        in Egypt and Qumran/Dead Sea areas, the belief of these original
        disciples were quite different than what the christians today believe
        in. For example, the Naag Hamadi finding showed that Jesus did not
        die on the cross, nor was he crucified, but was SUBSTITUTED by another
        person. Don't forget how the Ebionites, Basilidians, and other such
        groups which rejected the divinity of Jesus were haunted down by the
        Trinitarian church, esp. when the Roman government itself adopted
        christianity (i.e., Pauline version). I suggest that you read J.
        Robinson's "The Second Treatise of the Great Seth", and M.A. Yusseff's
        "The Dead Sea Scrolls, the gospel of Barnabas and the New Testament."
        In the christian apocryphal book, Gospel of Barnabas, it is stated that
        Jesus was only a Prophet, and even not the last messenger. Jesus is
        reported to have said that after him would come Muhammad - the last
        messenger of God. It also stated that Jesus did receive revelation like
        other prophets of God. Here, I am quite familiar with discomfort of
        most christians, and as a result of which the christian clergy over
        the last eight and a half decade went out on a crusadic mission to
        question the authenticity of this gospel. We understand their sensi-
        tivity since if one were to accept the gospel of Barnabas as contain-
        ing the uncontaminated teachings of Jesus, then there would be nothing
        left of christianity to propagate, but to accept Islam. Some of these
        christian clergies have even suggested that the gospel might have beenn
        written by a Muslim in the mid-16th century, or possibly by a newly
        convert to Islam. These kind of theories by biased researchers cannot
        hide the very fact that the gospel had nothing to do with Muslims/
        Islam, since the gospel of Barnabas formed one of the banned books of
        the christian church, hundreds of years before the birth of Prophet
        Muhammad. M.A. Yusseff, in his commentary on the Gospel of Barnabas,
        republished by American Trust Publications, answers all the questions
        raised by christian clergy, beginning with Ragg family to Sox (see also
        The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Barnabas and the New Testament).

        In your response you cited Paul's epistle written to the Hebrews. I
        don't give any value to Paul's writings merely because of the fact
        that he considered Melchisadek as God. I don't think he was ever
        inspired by God to write stuffs like that. So, his views are no
        concern of me. You may believe what you like, that is your discretion,
        I simply cannot trust a person who contaminated the teachings of Jesus.

        No, we don't accept that Jesus was crucified or died, but rather that
        someone else was substituted in his place, and that Jesus was ascended
    ALIVE to heaven by the angels prior to the whole crucifiction scenario ever
        took place, and that he will return to earth towards the end of time
        to kill ad-Dazzal (the false messiah), and that he will follow the
        shariah of Islam and will marry and eventually die on earth, and will
        be buried beside the grave of Muhammad (SAWS) in Madinah. This is our
        belief, based on Islamic traditions, as passed on to us by our Prophet
        Muhammad - the last messenger of God. After his return, he will
        symbolically break the cross (thus nullifying christianity as a false
      religion, which had nothing to do with his teachings). We are definitely
        excited by the findings of these latest excavation sites in the Middle
        East which show that there were original christians who lived about two
        millenia ago and who believed like Muslims today, in regard to Jesus.
        I hope I have been able to answer the Muslim position on Jesus.
----
Siddiqui.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc