From: darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: "Jesus did not claim divinity" Part 2
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:39:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, Davis

Here is the conclusion of the post from soc.religion.islam.
Read and enjoy!

Blessings,
Richard
(Tuneweaver)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Khushro says: ------------------
>. Jesus accepted worship as God:
and quotes several verses from the NT in support of his claim.
>MAT 8:2 And,behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if
>thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.       ----------

>JOH 9:38  And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
                                                ----------
>MAT 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying,
                                                    ----------
It is true that the English word 'worship' implies divine status. But to
check the word we must again turn to the Greek language (in which these
gospels were written down). We find that the Greek word used is
PROSKUNEO. This word means: to fall down, to do reverence, to bow down,
to prostrate oneself, to welcome, etc. This word is used by Greek
writers to describe the action of paying respect to the rulers or
elderly. In several places within the OT it also relates to reverencing
angels and heavenly bodies (Num. 22:31, Gen. 18:2), Prophets (e.g.,
Moses in Exodus 11:8) and even Israelite kings (e.g., Saul by David
in 1 Samuel 24:8, and David in 1 Kings 1:16). This verbe PROSKUNEO
does not imply divinity. But thanks to the christian translators,
they have twisted the word in English and several other languages
in order to deceive people by suggesting that Jesus was worshipped.

Even to this date, you will find customs among the pagans to touch their
heads to the ground when they meet their parents and other elderly
relatives or people in high positions. In none of these cases, this
act is considered to be worship (reverencing is not worship). Islam,
however, strictly forbids doing such acts of prostration to anybody
except Allah.

Khushro then quotes the incident about *doubting* Thomas:
>JOH 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
                                                     ====
>JOH 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thouhast
>believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Here again, from John's gospel: The main theme of christian argument is
in the verse John 20:28, where it is claimed that the 'doubting' Thomas
addressed Jesus as *both* lord and God. I don't think so. His words
of expression are words of self-reproach. We utter them daily, "My God|
what a fool I have been." Even out of amazement we say, "Joe, My God|
you did an excellent work." Consider also: "My son, O God| what have
you done?" In none of these cases, the listener ever becomes our God.

Note also that the first term "lord" means nothing more than a master
(see, 1 Peter 3:6 where Sara, the wife of Abraham, addressed her
husband as "lord". Check this out again, the use of capital letter
for "lord" as used in the NT, to deceive uninitiated readers). I am
well aware of the fact that the word 'Lord' can also mean God
(Rab in Arabic). But in John 20:28 that meaning would have made the
verse redundant (sounding like: my God, my God - which is perfectly
acceptable to us, since it would only signify an expression of
exclamation, not directed at Jesus, but being surprised that nothing
had happened to Jesus and that he was alive despite all those rumors
that he had died on the cross). Christians, obviously, prefer the
other rendering which equates Jesus with God.

Jesus had already pointed out that the Hebrew scriptures themselves
address men as gods (John 10:34, Psalm 82:6). This would allow for
Thomas's use of the term. Paul in 1 Cor. 8:6 even suggests that
there are many lords and gods. The impossibility of the orthodox
interpretation of Thomas's saying is quite apparent.

Note:
----
The entire Thomas episode has a different kind of understanding than
what the gospel-thumpers would make us believe. Jesus did not die on
the cross. He was alive (see Luke 24:5, Mark 16:11).
Someone else was transformed to look like him and that
person was crucified (see Gospel of Barnabas). Most early Chrisians
like Ibionites, Bassilidians and others believed that Jesus was
substituted on the cross. Even the latest excavations in the Naag
Hamadi area produced manuscripts that support this notion. (Ref:
The second treatise of the great Seth by J. Robinson) Ahmed Deedat,
in his book, Crucifixion or crucifiction, elaborates on this issue.

Khushro also cited some other verses to prove the divinity of Jesus.
All these relate to *Proskuneo*, as explained above. As such, they
don't deserve my attention any more.
----------------

Khushro cited Phil. 2:10-11: 'That at the name of Jesus every knee
would bow, .... and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ
is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.'

Before even scrutinizing the verses, it is necessary to establish the
authority of the writer - Paul (Saul of Tarsus), the man, who never met
Jesus personally when the latter was preaching. Paul was the self-
appointed, Hellenized Jew, who once persecuted the followers of Jesus.
He claimed that he was inspired by God to preach Jesus's teachings.
In so doing, he broke the Mosaic laws, allowed eating of the pork,
circumcision was not required any more, and Hellenized the concept
about Jesus (so that his teachings would be acceptable to the gentiles),
while we are constantly reminded by the gospel writers that Jesus did
not break a single Mosaic law and was an observant Jew. Can the self-
appointed pupil (albeit the 13th) be more important than the master?
No, if you care to read what Jesus said (Matt. 10:24).

Did Paul speak for God?
In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul wrote, "For this Melchisedec, king
of Salem, .... without father, without mother, without descent, having
neither beginning of days, nor end of life ..." (Heb. 7:1-3) Here, he
creates a candidate for divinity, far more worthy than anyone we know of
(e.g., Jesus and Adam). Was he inspired? The bible-thumpers think so,
despite the fact that Paul himself says that he was not inspired (1 Cor.
7:25). By whom? Not definitely by God (since that would make the King of
Salem - God, a proposition which  Christians themselves would have to
reject). Does this suggest that Paul was inspired by Satan? That may be
a fair conclusion (although very hard for Trinitarians to swallow). I
personally believe that Paul was deceived by Satan and was responsible
for contamination of Jesus's teachings. He definitely fits the image
of those fulfilling Jesus's prophesy in Mark (13:5-6): "And Jesus
answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: *For
many shall come in my name*, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive
many."  His statement in Titus 1:12 is self-contradictory.

As to the verse cited in Phil. 2:10, it is quite obvious how this
Hellenized Jew saw Jesus. This statement has not been made by Jesus and
does not prove the divinity of Jesus. The word 'lord', as explained
earlier, can be interpreted as other than 'God' (and this is obviously
clear even from Phil. 2:11).

Khushro writes:
>6. Jesus said "I am the way",not "I am one of the ways". That means that
>the only right was is to follow Jesus, not the Quran or anything else. ther
If Khushro had any knowledge of the sayings of the Muhammad (SAWS) then
he would not have made such remarks (see below).

>JOH 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no
>man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Read the context in which the verse was cited. In John 14:1 Jesus is
reported to have said, ".. Ye believe in God, and also believe in me."

During his time, the Pharisees and Sadooquees had already contaminated
God's teachings, as preached by their great Prophets. They falsified the
religion (the religion with God, had been always the same. It was Islam.
Muhammad was not the founder of Islam. He was the last among the family
of Prophets that began with Adam, through Noah, Abraham, Moses, David &
Jesus). Some even did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. They
forgot that Sabbath was created for men, not the other way around. (Matt
12:1-7) (The very notion that God rested on the Saturday, because He was
tired after the creation is not befitting to His majesty.) Jesus tried
to correct these false teachings, but to very little success, among the
'lost sheep of the house of Israel'. (Matt. 10:6) He warned that he was
their only hope for salvation. He told them that the messages he brought
from God were the truth and as such salvation lied in following him (and
not in following the Pharisees and Sadooquees, whom he called the vipers
and hypocrites). He warned that if they would reject him, then the
blessings, which God bestowed upon them through His Prophets, would
be taken away from them and given to others (e.g., their cousins, the
Ishmaelites). (Matt. 21:43) That would be the ultimate fulfillment of
Jacob's prophesy that the kingdom would be in the possession of his
family through Yahuda (Judah) until the coming of Shiluah, the Messenger
of Yah (God) - Rasulullah (SAWS), "the one to whom it truly belongs."
(Gen. 49:10) (I am aware of the fact that Christians like to see this
'Shiluah' as Jesus. But they are obviously mistaken. When I give a
man something to hold and tell him to keep it until the owner comes, do
I mean to say that the item belongs to one of his descendants? This
would hardly be a natural understanding. (Ref: Muhammad in the Bible by
Prof. Abdul-Ahad Dawud, formerly a Roman Catholic Priest - Rev. David
Benjamin Keldani of the Uniate-Chaldean Order, who accepted Islam in
1904.)) The only person in the entire history of mankind who is revered
as Rasulullah (the Apostle of Yah - Shiluah) is none other than Muhammad
(SAWS). (Note that Jesus was a descendant of Yahuda.)

The verse 14:6 has nothing to do with divinity of Jesus. It only says
that in order to approach God, one should follow Jesus. This verse,
taken in the *context of the period* in which Jesus was sent as a
Prophet of God to the Children of Israel is perfectly acceptable to us.

Muhammad (SAWS) said that had Musa alaihe was-salam (Moses)
(or any other prophet) were present in his time, Moses would have
followed him. (When Jesus comes to kill ad-Dazzal he will follow
the shariah of Islam and will also pray behind the Muslim leader.)
In several places, the Qur'an  says that those who follow the Prophet
(Muhammad) are following Allah, e.g., "He who obeys the Messenger
(Muhammad), obeys Allah." (Surah an-Nisa^ 4:80) Despite that no
Muslim ever considers Muhammad to be equal to God.

Khushro then mentioned some more verses from John's gospel (again) for
indirect Claims to Divinity (of Jesus).
Jesus had nothing to do with those statements. These were the
opinions of the gospel writer). As such, do not deserve our attention.

Khushro states:
>2. Knowing/seeing Jesus is the same as knowing/seeing God:
>JOH 8:19  Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered,Ye
>neither know me,nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my
>Father also.
>JOH 14:7 If ye had known me,ye should have known my Father also: and from
>henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
>JOH 14:8 Philip saith unto him,Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth
>us.
>JOH 14:9 Jesus saith unto him,Have I been so long time with you, and yet
>hast thou not known me, Philip?he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
>and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
>OH 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?
>the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself:but the Father that
>dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
>JOH 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father,and the Father in me: or else
>believe me for the very works' sake.

This has been explained before. A strict literal explication would mean
the unacceptable doctrine that Jesus is the Father. (This would violate
the very basis of the doctrine of Trinity.) Our reason is found in the
contrareity by John 5:37 where Jesus told a crowd about the Father
saying: "And the Father himself, which hath *sent me*, hath borne wit-
ness of me. You have *neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His
form*." So, it is very clear that what Jesus meant was: if you like to
keep God's commandments then follow me. And we don't have any problem
with that understanding, since a similar understanding is available
in our following Muhammad (SAWS).

--------------------
>. Jesus is responsible for judging all men on the judgement day. How can He do
>that if He was Himself a man, and not God?
>JOH 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgmentunto
>the Son:

The above verse did not explicate  which Son it is. As I have shown
earlier (SRI article on the divinity of Jesus) that we have several
candidates for this position (see Psalm 2:7, 89:26-27). Even if we were
to accept Jesus as the son who judges on behalf of God, the verse in
John 5:30 clearly shows that he is *subordinate* to God (even in the
heaven, where presumably the judgement would take place) and not a *co-
equal* as the doctrine of Trinity would demand.

-------------------
>. Other prophets said "Thus saith the Lord ... " when giving their
>teachings.But Jesus said "I say unto you...". Thus the teachings in the
>Bible are from Jesus. He was not just a messenger conveying the word ofGod

Wrong again. Read the Hadith. You will notice similar phrases used by
Muhammad (SAWS). Still, no Muslim ever considers Muhammad to be more
than a Prophet of Allah.

Khushro states again from John's gospel:
>. No man can be the saviour of the world, therefore Jesus was God:

 Christians hope to have us believe that God equals saviour (Isa. 43:3,
 43:11), and Jesus equals saviour (John 4:42), so Jesus must be God.
 That is another example of 'christian messamatics'. It is not going to
 work. Suppose,  I rescued someone from drowning and he said, "Habib,
 you are a saviour. You saved my life." Does that make me equal to God?
 Probably, in Xian logic.The word saviour has been applied to other than
 Jesus in II Kings 13:5, "And the LORD gave Israel a *saviour*, so they
 went out from under the hands of the Syrians". The plurals 'saviours'
 can also be found in Obadiah 21 ("And *saviours* shall come up on
 mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau") and Nehemiah 9:27 (".. and
 according to Thy manifold mercies Thou gavest them *saviours*, who
 saved them out of the hand of their enemies"). (Please, note that
 the King James Version tries to deceive the readers by writing 'thou'
 and 'thy' instead of 'Thou' and 'Thy', as should have been used for
 God. As I mentioned, such distortions are rampant in the Christian
 Bible.)

>JOH 4:42  And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy
>saying:for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the
>Christ, the Saviour of the world.

This statement is made by Samaritans, not by Jesus. He did not claim
the title of saviour.  So it does not prove the divinity of Jesus.
Interestingly, in Greek, the word 'savior' is 'soteros'. The writer of
the gospel 'according to' John (like Paul) uses a Greek formula which is
found on a large number of inscriptions to venerated (but deceased)
human beings. For example, one such inscription at Ephesus refers to
Julius Ceaser as the "god who has appeared (Ephiphane), the universal
"savior" (sotera) of the life of men." John's use of this same formula
to describe Jesus is therefore not surprising, esp. since it was
written around the end of the first century at the very center of Helle-
nic civilization. The use of this formula alone gives us an indication
of how this Hellenized Jew saw Jesus.

Khushro states:--
>. Jesus can forgive sins:

>MAR 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy,
>Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
               ----------------
Notice the use of passive form of the sentence 'sins be forgiven thee',
it is not an active form. So the verse does not say who does the actual
act of forgiveness.  It is, however, not uncommon for Prophets, acting
as God's agents on earth, to say similar things. The assertion that
Jesus's forgiveness of sin is blasphemy, put in the mouths of scribes
by the Synoptic authors, is simply wrong. The verse in John
12:49, among others, explains very well how a man could make such a
statement. In this verse, Jesus denies any personal initiative (see
also John 8:40 and 14:10). Muhammad (SAWS) himself even promised
several of his companions paradise (which is even more than forgiving
one's sins). This did not make Muhammad (SAWS) divine.
Even I, as a nominal Muslim follower of Muhammad (SAWS), am giving an
open invitation to my non-Muslim readers, "Accept Islam and thy sins
be forgiven thee. And do not commit any further sin." Does that make
me a God? Obviously, not, despite the fact what I said is the truth
and nothing but the truth.

Khushro then quotes Paul's writings to suggest that
> Jesus worshipped by the angels: (Heb. 1:5-6)

As I have shown earlier, Paul's writings were not inspired, so his
statements cannot be taken as a proof for divinity of Jesus. In these
verses Paul attributed that quality to Jesus, Jesus did not claim it
himself. Moreover, the word "Proskuneo" does not signify worship.

Khushro now quotes the most favorite verse for christians:
                       ====================
>Prophesy in the Old Terstament:

>ISA 9:6  For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
>government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
>Wonderful,Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of
>Peace.

Most hard-core Xians have given up on this verse.Still you couldn't find
anything better for deification of Jesus. This verse has been corrupted
in translation. The original verse reads like: and his name shall be
called Pele-joez-el-gibor-abi-sar-shalom (in Hebrew).
One possible meaning would be: his name shall be called *by*
the Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father *as*
the Prince of Peace. According to very famous Jewish scholar Rashi this
verse applies to Hezekiah (who later became a King) and has nothing to
with Jesus. This prophesy is being said to his father Ahaz (Achaz).
Most Jewish commentators understand the verse this way.
Ibn-Ezra mentions this interpretation, but prefers to have all the names
refer to Hezekiah, and likes to use the other possible meaning of the
word "el" which is "powerful (denoting strength)" instead of "God".
The book of Isaiah has been extant among the Jews for centuries before
the birth of Jesus and no one ever understood Isa. 9:6 to mean anything
other than referring to Hezekiah. Only in Christian translations,
the element of divinity for human beings was added to its meaning.
Christian deception is truly unparallel in selective usage of terms,
distorting meanings of the Hebrew (and Greek) words.

No wonder christianity has divorced itself of the teachings of Jesus and
instead took up the pagan doctrines from the Hellenistic society which
it tried to proselytize (thanks to the self-claiming disciple, Paul).

A final note:
We have seen in the above article why the gospel-thumping christians
like to use the gospel "according to" John more than any other gospels
in support their belief in Trinity. The lack of any explicit statement
about the divinity of Jesus in the Synoptic gospels and other old
NT writings (pre-90 C.E.), esp. before the First Revolt of 70 C.E.,
seem to indicate that Jesus never made such claims of divinity and that
the whole doctrine of Trinity (involving the divinity of Jesus)
developed much later. Most Biblical scholars agree with this assertion.

As to how the NT was contaminated, O'Culmann writes in "The New
Testament":
  "As little by little, the New Testament writings broke away from the
   rest of early christian literature, and came to be regarded as Holy
   Scripture, so the copier became more and more hesitant about taking
   the *same liberties* as their predecessors: they thought they were
   copying the authentic texts, but in fact wrote down the *variations*.
   Finally, a copier sometimes wrote annotations in the margins to
   explain an obscure passage. The following copier, thinking that the
   sentence he found in the margin had been left out of the passage by
   his predecessor, thought it necessary to include the margin notes in
   the text. This process often made new text even more obscure."

 Allah says in the Qur'an: "O people of the book, commit no excesses in
                            your religion: nor say of Allah aught but
                            the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Maryam,
                            was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah,
                            and His word which He bestowed upon Mary,
                            and a spirit proceeding from him: so
                            believe in Allah and His messengers."(4:171)

                           "It is not befitting to the (majesty of)
                            Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be
                            to Him| When He determines a matter, He
                            only says to it, "Be", and it is." (19:35)

 The NT says (gospel according to Matthew): "And behold, one came and
                            said unto him, Good master, what good thing
                            shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
                            And he (Jesus) said unto him, Why callest
                            thou me *good*? there is *none good* but
                            one, that is, GOD: but if thou wilt enter
                            into life, keep the commandments."(19:16-17)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
- Habib Siddiqui.