From: RBNXHS%ROHVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Jesus did not claim godhood/a rebuttal of missionary theology
Date: 29 Aug 92 04:34:19 GMT
Reply-To: RBNXHS%ROHVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Originator: gwydion@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu

Does the Bible quote Jesus as claiming equality with God? Bible texts
are produced to show that Jesus used the terms 'son of man', 'son of
God', 'messiah' and 'saviour'. But each of these terms were also applied
to other individuals in the Bible (see my previous article posted on the
SRI: The so-called divinity of Jesus).

This article is written as a response to a non-Muslim who brought up a
number of verses from the Bible to suggest that Jesus is God and that
he was worshipped. In my response article that follows I have attempted
to show that there is *not* a *single* verse in the Bible to suggest
such a claim. The verses that you will see below (as presented by
Khushro) are very typical of the ones used by christian missionaries to
sell the idea that Jesus was God. You will also notice why the gospel
"according to" John (and not the Synoptic gospels) is the most favorite
in the hands of gospel-thumping christians. You are welcome to make
copies of this article and distribute among fellow Muslims, and use
the material (with acknlowedgement) for debate with non-Muslims.

=== Habib Siddiqui.

N.B: Abbr.: NT=the so-called New Testament (used by Pauline christians)
            OT= "     "      Old Testament (used by Jews). Note that
                             Jews don't consider their books to be
                             "Old" Testament. So the terms used here
                             are based on christian terminology.
=====================================================================

><khushro@niagara.eecs.umich.edu> writes:
>   ..The one God has made Himself known to us in 3 different
>forms. Hence we know the same God by the following 3 names. (This isn't
>surprising, the Quran has 101 names for God.)

 Wrong. The names of God (Asma al-Husna) are the attributes of God.
 They are not the forms (morphe) of God. Allah is All-merciful,
 All-knowing, Everlasting, etc. While the Christian god is a mixture of
 three co-eval components (each having exactly equal power). As you
 explained in your words:
>1. God the Father, who is in the heavens,
>2. God the Son, who came down to earth in the form of a human, as Jesus
>to save us. The reason we know that Jesus is God, is because He said so
>Himself.                                                     ----------

 You are wrong again.
 There is not a single verse in the Bible where Jesus said: "I am god"
 or "a god-incarnate" on earth or "worship me."

>3.God the holy spirit, that lives inside each of us who believe in Him.
>At the same time He was also the son of man,since in His human form, he was
>born from Mary.                  ----------

 Yes, Jesus was nothing more than a son of a *woman*, Maryam (Mary).
 Pagan mythologies are rife with gods who come to earth and dead
 persons who become gods. In some cases these gods needed some type of
 precursors among the lower beings (human beings or other creatures)
 to appear on earth. Dying and reborn god theme was pervasive in just
 about every every European culture. Does this give you any clue as to
 why the Hellenized writers of the NT books changed the role of Jesus
 to suit the already held pagan beliefs of Romans and Greeks?
 (For similarities between the christian god and mythical god, Zeus,
 please, read Dr. Ali Shariati's "Marxism and other Western Fallacies,"
 Mizan Press, Berkeley.)
 Why does the son of God require a human mother to be born in the womb
 of Mary? He could have directly descended on earth in the form of a
 human being.

>It's very mportant to realize that the Trinity is the 3 names or 3 forms of
>the same one God.A few very poor examples can be given from the material

Yes, the water-ice-steam is a very poor example, since it even violates
the very basis of Christian doctrine of Trinity as laid down in the
Athanasian creed.

>Proof that Jesus is God:
>There can be no doubt about the clarity of meaning of the following
>quoptations from the Bible. Therefore, there can be only 2 possible
>conclusions:
>1.that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, and that christianity is not from
>God. This is denied by the Quran.

You are wrong. Nowhere in the Qur'an it says that Christianity is from
Allah.
>2. that the following claims are true, and Jesus is really God.

The same old *missionary* trick question. We have seen this question for
the last few hundred years. Is the antonym for liar - God? Is the
antonym for lunatic - God?. If that be the case, then most Muslims
are gods. What a christian logic| What is the antonym for God? Is it
more than a created being? No. The Qur'an clearly says that Jesus was
nothing more than a human being, a prophet of Allah. How about this
alternative understanding about Jesus (John 7:40, Luke 7:16, 24:19)?

>Direct claims to divinity:

>1.Jesus was crucified for blasphemy, for claiming to be God, and not because
>other people said so,but because He Himself said so. When the High priest
>asked Him "Art thou the Christ,the Son of the Blessed?", He said "I am:"
      Jesus did not claim that he was God.

>MAR 14:60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus,
>saying,Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
>MAR 14:61 But he held his peace,and answered nothing. Again the high priest
>asked him,and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
>MAR 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sittingon
>the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
>MAR 14:63 Then the high priest rent his clothes,and saith, What need we any
>further witnesses?
>MAR 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye?And they all condemned
>him to be guilty of death.

It was *not* blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah. It only became
blasphemous through the writings of the gospel-writers. In the history
of children of Israel there had been many persons who claimed to be the
Messiah, both before and after Jesus.

Let us now scrutinize the verses of Mark:
The high priest asked, Art thou the Christ, the son of the Blessed One.
And Jesus said, "I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on .."
..................................(Mark 14:61-62)
First, the verses do not imply that Jesus is the son of man.
   As a matter of fact, the identity of this very
   *Son of Man* is unknown (I am, however, quite familiar with other
   verses in the Bible where the phrase has been used for other
   Jewish personalities, including Prophet Ezekiel in the OT), so
   any notion as to Jesus's sitting on the right hand of God is
   at best a hypothetical one.
Secondly, The gospel writer tries to make an equality:
            Christ = Son of God (Blessed One)
   as if that was the Jewish understanding about the nature of Messiah.
   This suggestion is totally out of line with Jewish expectations
   about the messiah and is simply preposterous (see below).

   Jews expected a messiah (Gr. Christos) and in their understanding
   messiah was/is always a human being, not a Son of God in the
   literal sense (Read RamBam's interpretation on the subject of
   Mosiach). I have already shown in my previous article
   (The so-called divinity of Jesus, posted on the SRI) that the use
   of such terms: son of man, son of God, messiah are extant in the
   Bible and were used for persons other than Jesus as well (e.g.,
   Jesus himself spoke of peace-makers as 'sons of God' (Matt. 5:9)).

   Let me quote a few words from Mishna on the subject of Messiah:
       "Can there be a greater stumbling block than (Christianity)?
       All the prophets spoke of Messiah as the redeemer of Israel
       and its savior, who would gather their dispersed and strengthen
       their (observance of) the Mitzvot. (By contrast, Christianity)
       caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to
       be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the
       majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the
       Lord." (tr. Rabbi Eliyahu Tougar, Moznaim Press, from Halacha 4)

As to Jesus's answer: I am. The answer is very vague in the sense
   that he could have said yes to both parts of the question (i.e.
   he is both the messiah and the son of God) or just one of them.
   If he said that he was the Messiah, we don't have a problem
   (as per our Qur'an). If he said, he is both (which most christians
   believe) than we can only take the figurative meaning (not literal)
   for which there are several examples within the OT itself to support
   such claims (see my previous article again). And in none of those
   cases, Jews ever took the phrase literally (otherwise they have
   their hands full with these *sons* of God, even *Gods*).

   Now the question comes why then accuse Jesus of blasphemy (if it
   actually happened the way the gospel writer wrote)?
    Our understanding is *iff* the Jews understood
   that the Messiah was supposed to be a god-incarnate (god-man) then
   they could only try to kill the claimer for one reason -  to
   check if the person was a false messiah (since the *true*
   messiah cannot be killed by Jews, and as such will not die. He is
   even expected to be as powerful as Moses was, so that the glory
   of Jewish people  will again be restored to its maximum).
   In this context, let me again quote from RamBam:
      "If he (the claimant of Messiah) did not succeed to this
      degree or he was killed, he surely is not (the redeemer)
      promised by the Torah." (op. cit.)

   It is crystal clear that Jesus never met any of those Jewish
   aspirations. He was not like Moses (cf. Deut. 18:18). The gospel
   writers also claim that Jesus was crucified and died on
   the cross. It only strengthens the Jewish belief that Jesus was  a
   "false" messiah and nothing more than that, and as such, deserved
   to die (this is the Jewish opinion).

   Any supposed connection between the word Messiah and the attritutive
   of divinity has no bearing on this matter. The bottom line is,
   the Jews have never believed that the promised Messiah would be
   a man (or a god-man) who is equal to God. Here, the christians
   try to explain that this is the precise reason why the Jews tried
   to kill Jesus (i.e., when the Jews found out that the true messiah
   was supposed to be a god-man and not an ordinary man, which Jesus
   was trying to tell them, then they accused him of blasphemy). The
   question arises how come this message that the Messiah was supposed
   to be a god-man was never explained to them by multitudes of prophets
   who came. Christians say that well this message was brought by
   Isaiah (9:6). We shall discuss this issue later (since Khushro does
   bring this verse as a supporting doctrine at the end of his article).

Several other points can be raised from the gospel "according to" Mark:
1. How did Mark know about what happened during the questioning? Read
   the NT thoroughly and you will recognize that all the dispciples
   had fled when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus (Mark 14:50). Mark
   was not there nor were any disciple of Jesus (except Peter who was
   beneath the Palace of the High Priest (14:66). It is, however, very
   unlikely that Peter would be allowed anywhere close to the actual
   place where Jesus was questioned. Do not forget that he himself was
   afraid of his own life (14:71)). Mark  was not even a disciple.
   We are here reminded by christians that the gospel writers were
   inspired (a kind of minor revelation). Our question is: were the
   other gospel writers inspired, too? Again, christians tell us that
   they were. Then our question is: how come the accounts of each gospel
   writer varies so drastically from the other (as an example, how come
   the names of the twelve disciples vary between Mark and Luke? When
   was he crucified - the 3rd (Mark 15:25) or 6th hour (John 19:14)?
   There are several other such anomalies. Interested readers may
   like to read Ahmed Deedat's Is the Bible God's word and 50,000 errors
   in the Bible;  Rahmatullah Keranwi's Izharul Haq)? These anomalies
   alone can mean one thing: the gospel writers were not inspired by
   "GOD".
2. It is not the custom of Sanhedrin (the Jewish high priest's office)
   to meet after the sunset. So the whole story about Jesus being
   tried by the Sanhedrin could well be a hoax.
3. The punishment for blasphemy in the Jewish canon is death by stoning.
   And to execute such punishments the Sanhedrin had autonomy and
   needed no permission from the Roman government nor were they required
   to hand over any such culprits to the Romans. They could carry out
   the punishment on their own. So the whole gospel account is doubtful.
   (Let me also remind my readers that the punishment for treason
   against the Roman government, on the other hand, was crucifixion.
   So, if Jesus was crucified, as the gospel writers tell us, then
   he could well have been punished for treason against the state.)
   Moreover, why would the Roman authorities try to kill a good, law-
   abiding person, who advised his followers to render unto Ceaser
   what is Ceaser's (Matt. 22:21)? (Read, Hammudah Abdalati's "Islam in
   Focus)
   (Note: The Qur'an rejects the idea of crucifixion of Jesus.)

Given the above facts, the whole account of what Jesus said during his
"supposed" trial is of dubious origin and unworthy to be trusted. Mark
14:62 is obviously insufficient to prove Jesus's sonship to God.

On the so-called divinity of Jesus, Khushro quotes:
>JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
>JOH 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
>JOH 10:32 Jesus answered them,Many good works have I shewed you from my
>Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
>JOH 10:33 The Jews answered him,saying, For a good work we stone thee not;
>but for blasphemy; and because that thou,being a man, makest thyself God.
>JOH 10:34 Jesus answered them,Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
>gods?
>JOH 10:35 If he called them gods,unto whom the word of God came, and the
>scripture cannot be broken;
>JOH 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the
>world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
>JOH 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
>JOH 10:38 But if I do,though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye
>may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
>JOH 10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him:but he escaped out of
>their hand,

Let me make some points very clear to my readers before I scrutinize the
verses in the gospel "according to" John:
1. Most Biblical scholars do not consider that this gospel was written
   by the disciple - John.
2. The writer was, nevertheless, influenced by the writings of a former
   Hellenized Jew - Philo of Alexandria, who introduced the concept of
   LOGOS several decades before the birth of Jesus.
3. This gospel was written in the Greek city of Ephesus, most probably
   close to the end of the first century (98-110 C.E.), well after the
   Jewish Revolt of 70 C.E. As such, pagan, Hellenic
   elements leading to deification of Jesus (in line with Roman
   concept of gods) are extant in this gospel. (And that is what makes
   John's gospel to be the most *favorite* among the Trinitarians.)
4. John's gospel is, therefore, quite different than Synoptic gospels
   (i.e., gospels *according to* Mark, Matthew and Luke).

Now as to the verse John 10:30:
   The use of the term 'Father' (Abba) is inconclusive evidence that God
   was literally the Father of Jesus. All christians use the term when
   addressing God (see, also, Romans 8:15, Gal. 4:6). The Jews them-
   selves used the term in John 8:41. Jesus told them that the devil
   was their father (John 8:44). Of course, he was not speaking
   literally.

   The Greek word translated "one" is Hen. Most scholars have insisted
   that the only possible understanding of this word is 'one in
   purpose.' One need not be a Greek scholar to refute the unjustified
   claim by christians (who think that Jesus is same as God). A counter
   example is sufficient. The same word is used in John 17:11, 21-23,
   where Jesus includes his disciples in this oneness, whatever its
   meaning. E.G., "That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in
                   me, and I in Thee, that they also may be *one* in
                   *us*: that the world may believe that Thou hast
                   sent me." (John 17:21)
   If Jesus is one with God (literally) and that oneness makes him God
   or equal to God, then why not include his disciples also as Gods?
    AS such, the only logical and sound explanation for this very
   ambiguous statement is that it cannot be taken literally, and that
   the "oneness" referred  above only meant "one in purpose".

Jesus demostrated to those Jews,by quoting their own scripture, that
   they had no ground for their accusation against him. For example,
   in John 10:34-35, Jesus was referring to Psalm 82:6 ("I have said,
   Ye are Gods: and all of you are the children of the Most High").
   So what he was trying to tell the Jews was that in their own books
   God had called their Prophets (to whom the word of God came) as
   gods (see also Exodus 7:1 where Moses is referred to as a god:
   "See, I have made thee (Moses) a god to Pharaoh") then why would they
   try to kill him for even an inferior claim: "I am the son of God"?
   (Again, I would like to reemphasize that the verses similar to
   Exodus 7:1 were never taken literally by the Jewish people.)
   The Jews, however, were looking for an excuse for beating him, they
   were not ready to listen to reason. Jesus had, at other occasions,
   called their men of learning as vipers, hypocrites. He had challenged
   the authority of the corrupt clergy. (Read, the Gospel of Barnabas,
   where it provides some more reasons for wanting to kill Jesus,
   notably, about the true identity of the promised Messiah.)
   The above verses cited should, therefore, be considered in that
   figurative context, not in the literal sense. Jesus even did not
   claim that he was equal to God. In the verse just prior to the ones
   cited here, John 10:29, Jesus even said that:
      "My Father,which gave them (disciples) me, is *greater* than all."
   (This verse alone is sufficient to disprove the co-equality condition
   between the Son of God and Father the God, as laid down in the
   Trinity doctrine.)
   Jesus also said that his Father is the same Father for his disciples,
   too: "I ascend unto *my Father*, and *your Father*; and to *my God*,
   and *your God*. (John 20:17) So, if this verse is taken literally
   then God has not just one son (Jesus), BUT MANY SONS. Are you willing
   to accomodate all these Sons of God?

Khushro says:----------------------------------
>3. "I am" is God's name, given by God to Abraham, according to the Old
     ====
>Testament.This name is so sacred to the Jews, that they don't even speak
>these words.Jesus used this name for Himself, and again he was stoned for
>balsphemy.

  You are wrong (see below).

>EXO 3:13  And Moses said unto God,Behold, when I come unto the children of
>Israel,and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto
>you;and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
>EXO 3:14  And God said unto Moses,I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt
>thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

>JOH 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before
>Abraham was, I am.
>JOH 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him:but Jesus hid himself, and
>went out of the temple,going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

In order to get a good understanding of the verses in John, one should
  read the entire chapter 8. Here it shows that there was a dispute
  between Jesus and Jews. The Jews were very boastful about their
  ancestor - Abraham, (8:39) and accused Jesus as one 'born of fornica-
  tion' (most of them did not accept his miraculous birth), and said
  that 'we have one Father, even God'. Then Jesus reminded them that
  'If God were your Father, ye would love me', because he came (as a
  Prophet) from God and that 'neither came I of myself, but He sent me.'
  (8:41-43) Jesus said that they were in fact sons of devil (John 8:44).
  (Again, I warn my readers not to take this literally. Jesus was
  coining the phrase 'your father the devil' metaphorically, similar
  to the statement made by Jews as God being their Father.)
  When the dispute turned nasty, Jesus said, "If a man keep my saying
  he shall never see death." (8:51) Was he using the phrase 'never
  see death' literally? No, since all his disciples (the ones who
  truly kept the commandments, e.g., Barnabas and James) died in
  due time. But the Jews were looking for creating the trouble, so they
  interpreted Jesus's saying literally and asked: "Art thou greater than
  our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom
  makest thou thyself?" (8:53) That is to say: 'who do you think
  you are? Every old prophet, including our father - Abraham is dead,
  and now you say that if someone follows you, he is not gonna die?'
  Jesus again tried to reason with them saying that if they
  were true children of Abraham then they would have followed him,
  because he was propagating God's message and Abraham himself would
  have rejoiced of his work. But the Jews in the temple would not
  accept his reasoning, they tried to make a big fuss about the
  apparent meaning of his statement (while he was speaking metaphori-
  cally, see also John 6:63, 10:6). So Jesus reminded them that
  before Abraham appeared as a flesh on earth, Jesus's spirit was
  created. And that is the context of the verse 8:58.

  Does that prehuman existence of Jesus's spirit make him God?
  If the answer is yes, how about Jeremiah (1:5) where the Prophet
  Jeremiah is reported to had a pre-human existence (if taken
  literally)? But, I am sure, christians' *selective* usage of the
  Biblical terminologies would not let that be acceptable.
  There are lot of Muslims in the world who believe that before
  the Prophet Muhammad sallal-lahu alaihe was-salam (SAWS) came as a
  flesh (man) on earth that Allah created his spirit (before others).
  No Muslim, however, considers that Muhammad (SAWS) was a God or
  had anything to do with divinity.

Here, the christian deception, however, lies with the equality of
the phrase "I am" in both the verses (of Exodus and John).
Is that a valid argument? Consider the case, A says: *I am* good;
and B says: *I am* good. Does that make A=B? Not, necessarily. It is
a very poor logic that the missionaries have been toying with.

  Let us consider John's verses (again the favorite gospel writer
  for the Trinitarians).

As I mentioned, christian deception lies with the equality of
the phrase "I am" used in Exodus and John. For more than 200 years
before the birth of Jesus, Jews used a Greek translation of their
Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint. This work translated the phrase,
"I am" (of Exodus) as HO ON. The Hellenized writer of John's gospel
(written also in Greek) could have easily used the same phrase HO ON
to write the above verses if Jesus had claimed divinity. But he did
not and, instead, used Ego Eimi. What we see in Exodus is God asks Moses
to say that, HO ON sent him, while in John's gospel, Jesus said that
before Abraham was Ego Emi (before Abraham was I am).
The divinity of Jesus is therefore far from conclusive in this verse.
(Read, Gary Miller's (AbdulAhad Omar) "A Concise Reply to Christianity",
Ordinary Press, Canada.)

Moreover, the book of Exodus was originally written in Hebrew (not in
Greek). The Hebrew word for 'I am' is ani or anokhi (aleph nun waw khe
yod). The actual Hebrew rendering of the Exodus verse would be:
A^hea a^sher A^hea. It has nothing to do with 'I am that I am' as the
christians had deceptively translated into English (the meaning of
asher = that, A^hea = very sacred name of God, it is not 'I am').
Christians are very good with such deliberate manipulations with the
text of the Bible (changing meanings, capitalizing letters for Jesus
while ignoring captitalization for God, etc. In the semitic languages,
Hebrew like Arabic and old Syriac - Aramaic, there is no upper and lower
case letters). We shall see a similar, glaring example of christian
deception with their most favorite OT verse (Isa. 9:6) later in this
article.
(Read, Hizbul Bahar by Abul Hasan Shadili.)

>From the above discussion, it is clear that Jesus did not claim divinity
in any sense of the term. It is only in the Christian *fertile*
imagination based on willful, distorted rendering of some Hebrew and
Greek words.

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.