The Trinity denies the Oneness of God by saying that God is a single Being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a communion of three persons (personae, prosopa): Father (the Source, the Eternal Majesty); the Son (the eternal Logos or Word, incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth; and the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete or advocate). Since the 4th Century AD, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "One God in Three Persons," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal "persons" or "hypostases," share a single Divine essence, being, or nature.

Basically, the Trinity concept was borrowed from the various European Gentiles, coined and shined and presented to please all the Gentiles who had different kinds of trinities earlier. It worked!

Most of the good Trinitarians here are already more aware of the verses of Qur'aan far more than the verses of their own Scriptures. So, could you quote less please and make your posts short and crisp, please? I have already given you the tips.

BR & Salaam Alaikum

BMZ

Basically, the Trinity concept was borrowed from the various European Gentiles, coined and shined and presented to please all the Gentiles who had different kinds of trinities earlier. It worked!

Most of the good Trinitarians here are already more aware of the verses of Qur'aan far more than the verses of their own Scriptures. So, could you quote less please and make your posts short and crisp, please? I have already given you the tips.

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

W/salam to you brother. Thank you for your advice.  

AbRah2006,

No Christianity is not a pagan religion.  As I am sure you are aware, the same claims are made against Islam.

Peace

Could've fooled me

check out the festivities and history of them, fascinating  and then you'll see  

[QUOTE=Cyril]Bmzsp

Your quote: "Basically, the Trinity concept was borrowed from the various European Gentiles, coined and shined and presented to please all the Gentiles who had different kinds of trinities earlier."


The Trinity concept was most probably borrowed from pagan religions when Christianism emerged from Judaism.
One of its element, the virgin birth of Jesus, was also borrowed by Christianism from paganism and by the Quran from Christianism.
So why scoff at Christianism for their borrowing?

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

My response:

Quran 16:36 For We assuredly sent amongst every People an apostle, (with the Command), "Serve God, and eschew Evil": of the People were some whom God guided, and some on whom error became inevitably (established). So travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who denied (the Truth).

Surah 3 - Ali 'Imran - THE FAMILY OF 'IMRAN

003.001 Alif, Lam, Mim.

003.002 God! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal.

003.003 It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgement between right and wrong).

Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) (Salallahu �alayhi wa salam, meaning: May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was All�h's  great Prophet and Messenger   like Jesus, the Son of Mary.  The Prophet's mission, however, is universal. Allah (S.W.T.)    (Subhanahu wa ta�ala, meaning: the Exalted, Most Glorious) tells mankind that Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) is no more than a Messenger (Qur�an 3: 144), the unlettered Prophet who believes in Him and His Words (Qur�an 7: 158).  He is the Seal of the Prophets and the true universal Messenger of All�h to the whole mankind (Qur�an 33: 40). Allah (S.W.T.), the All-Mighty, makes this very clear:

"We have not sent you (O Muhammad) but as a universal (Messenger) to men giving them glad tidings and warning them (against sin) but most men understand not." (Qur�n 34: 28)

For our guidance, Allah (S.W.T.), the All-Mighty commands us to believe and obey His Messenger (s.a.w.s.):

"Say (O Muhammad to mankind): �If you (really) love All�h then follow me (i.e. accept Isl�mic Monotheism, follow the Qur��n and the Sunnah), All�h will love you and forgive you your sins. And All�h is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.� Say (O Muhammad): �Obey All�h and the Messenger (Muhammad).� But if they turn away, then All�h does not like the disbelievers." (Qur�an 3: 31)

"O mankind! Verily, there has come to you the Messenger (Muhammad) with the truth from your Rabb (Sustainer). So believe in him, it is better for you. But if you disbelieve, then certainly to All�h belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. And All�h is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise." (Qur�n 4: 170)

"O you who believe! Obey All�h, and obey the Messenger (Muhammad) and render not vain your deeds." (Qur�n 47: 33)

Question: Why did God send Muhammad and the Quran to all mankind after Moses, the Torah, Jesus and injeel etc?

We Muslims believe that Allah Almighty did send the Torah (Old Testament or the Law) to the Jews, but they then corrupted this Holy Message;  "We (Allah) certainly gave the Book To Moses, but differences arose therein:  had it not been That a Word had gone forth Before from thy Lord, the matter Would have been decided Between them:  but they Are in suspicious doubt Concerning it.  (The Noble Quran, 11:110)"  

The original Message of the Torah (Old Testament) was still around during Muhammad's (peace be upon him) time.  But because the Jews had so much controversies, disputes and age-old prejudices among themselves, they ended up losing the entire original message.  Please keep in mind that the Jews were divided into several tribes before Islam, and those tribes had so much problems.  They never had One True Judaism as many Christians mistakenly believe.  That is why the Jews massacred each others before and brought themselves from 11 tribes to only 2 (Judea and Samara located in what we call today West Bank Palestine) due to all of the blood shed that took place between them.  A total of 9 tribes were completely wiped out.  That is why "differences arose therein....."   Allah Almighty promised hell to those Jews who caused the corruption of the Original Torah; "Know they not Allah Knoweth what they [the Jews] conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them [the Jews] illiterates, who know not the Book [the Old Testament], but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.  Then woe to those who write the Book [Old Testament] with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' To traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.   (The Noble Quran, 2:77-78)"  

As for the Christians and their Injil (New Testament), we Muslims believe that the Christians unintentionally had corrupted the Bible because they waited for too long to document it.  Some Christians believe that the Bible was documented 150 years after Jesus.  Others believe it took 300 years.  In either case, the gap is too big and no Christian can guarantee accuracy.  That is why you read in their current books and Gospels things such as "And Jesus said to Matthew....." instead of "And Jesus said to me [Matthew]...." and so on.  Cases similar to this example literally exist in most of the New Testament of today, where they prove that the New Testament was not even written by its original authors.  It was written by third party people, and their words are considered today the Word of GOD, which is wrong and sinful.  The Christian sects also believe in different number of Gospels when you compare them to each others.  The number of Books/Gospels in the Roman Catholics Bible for instance is different from the King James Version Bible, which is different in the number of Books/Gospels from the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible, which is different in the number of Books/Gospels from the Mormon's Bible, etc... Please visit http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra.htm - History of man's corruption in the Bible for more details.  Today, there is no one Bible!.

Allah Almighty warned Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him from the false practices done by Jews and Christians:

"Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: 'The Guidance of God,-that is the (only) Guidance.' Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against God.  (The Noble Quran, 2:120)"

"They say: 'Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation).' Say thou: 'Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with God.'  (The Noble Quran, 2:135)"

"Indeed they reject the truth, those that say "God is Christ, the son of Mary." For indeed, Christ said, worship God, who is my God and your God.  (The Holy Quran, 5:72)"

Trinity today, and the corruption of the Torah (The Law sent to the Jews) to prove that the Jews are the best people for all times and all places and the denial of Jesus peace be upon him and the many other false teachings are evidence of the false teachings and practices of the Christians and the Jews.

In general, we Muslims believe that the current Torah and Injil are mixed between the true Words of GOD Almighty and man's corruption.  We also believe that the Bible had more truth in it during Muhammad's (peace be upon him) time than what we have today.   That is why Allah Almighty was challenging some of the Jews and the Christians to refer to their Scriptures back then.

Even the Bible says that the Bible would be corrupted into a lie by the its keepers:

In Deuteronomy 31:25-29 Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted.  The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption.

the entire Bible is corrupted and unreliable and is mostly filled with man-made laws and corruption!  GOD Almighty Said: "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.  (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the Bible into a lie!

The Noble Quran came to CONFIRM the Truth that exists in the Bible.  Allah Almighty NEVER claimed that the bible is fully and 100% Divine.  Islam is a witness on the Bible.  It filters out the truth from falsehood and corruption in the Bible.  The Noble Quran only recognizes the Bible as a HISTORY BOOK with errors and man's alteration in it.  Anything that agrees 100% with Islam is valid, and anything else that has even the slightest disagreement with Islam is discarded.

That is why we Muslims believe in only the parts of the Bible that agree with the Noble Quran.  The parts that contradict the Noble Quran are not the Truth:

"That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge;  That they said (in boast):  'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.'  But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjunction to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.  Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise.  And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him  (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them.   (The Noble Quran, 4:156-159)"  

"Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book (i.e., the Bible), but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.  Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' To traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.   (The Noble Quran, 2:77-78)"

"O Apostle! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, 'If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!' If any one's trial is intended by God, thou hast no authority in the least for him against God. For such - it is not God's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.  (The Noble Quran, 5:41)"

Source: http://www.answering-christianity.com/que9.htm - http://www.answering-christianity.com/que9.htm

My response:

Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity - God being Three-in-One - is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three.

 I quote Cyril's statement:The same can be said of Islam which is definitely not a pagan religion even if it integrated some Arab pagan beliefs.

Tell me what the pagan beliefs are!

Annie,

I think Cyril is referring to the idea of Trinity, which was borrowed from other pagans and Gentiles, like the Greek and the Romans. Trinity was prominent in Mithraism and in Hinduism. In Hinduism, it still is.

BMZ 

Excuse me, Annie!

Are you saying that Jesus taught Trinity? There is not a single shred of any evidence that he taught so from the Scriptures.

This idea, suggested by others after he was long gone, was discussed nonstop for 364 years by learned men and only finalised by Augustine's stamping.

Annie,

"It depends on what you mean by "Trinity."" Have it your way.

OK, please define what Trinity means to you, in your own simple words, without quoting anyone. Thanks

AnnieTwo's statement: "Trinity" to me means that God interacts with us through the Father and through the incarnate Word and through his Spirit.

It really is very simple.

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

My response: Let us compare AnnieTwo's statement above with Paul's statement: 

In 1st Timothy, 2:5, Paul writes: �For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.�

AnnieTwo's statement: "Trinity" to me means that God interacts with us through the Father and through the incarnate Word and through his Spirit.

Clearly one of these people or both AnnieTwo and Paul are wrong , either way, it�s a contradiction.

From Cyril,

"Two more remarks: Jews, Christians and pagans lived side by side in Palestine at the time of the Roman occupation.
The Jews could perfectly well distinguish between what was biblical and what was from paganism. That is why most of them did not accept Christianism."

Well said.

They also happened to know their Holy Scriptures well too.

BMZ

AbRah,

Good quote and it is a solid one from paul.

"In 1st Timothy, 2:5, Paul writes: �For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.�

Paul, though I don't like him personally, at least has always been honest and bold with that statement. He never mixes Jesus with God. Although Paul only calls him son of God, he always maintains that Jesus was a man who could intercede with God. BUt for sure, Paul has never called him the GOD. This is a better explanation than trinity.

I quote AnnieTwo's statement: There is no contradiction between me and Paul.

My response:

Let me quote your statement: AnnieTwo's statement: "Trinity" to me means that God interacts with us through the Father and through the incarnate Word and through his Spirit.

And Paul's:

In 1st Timothy, 2:5, Paul writes: �For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.� 

It seems to me that according to you AnnieTwo the mediator between God and men are the the Father, the incarnate Word and  his Spirit.
However Paul says that the mediator between God and men is THE MAN Christ Jesus!

Can't you see the  contradiction between you and Paul? It is very clear that one of these people or both AnnieTwo and Paul are wrong , either way, it�s a contradiction!

Cyril wrote: Annie I am sorry but I discuss only "man to man (or woman)" not with a link.

Are the New Testament themes found
in the Old Testament?

      The concepts in the New Testament were not derived out of thin air.  ../kjv/Amos/Amos_3.htm#7%C2%A0 - Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets."  What is mentioned in the New Testament is revealed in the Old Testament either clearly or in types and figures.  ../kjv/Gen/Gen_22.htm#1%C2%A0 - Gen. 22 is a great example of the sacrifice of Jesus, the Son in ../dictionary/dic_t.htm#_1_192 - Typology represented by the sacrifice of Isaac.
     Some critics of Christianity state that Christianity borrowed its concepts from pagan sources like Mitrha, Osiris, Apollonius, etc.  Admittedly, there are similarities in some pagan religions with Christianity, but that does not mean Christian writers borrowed from them any more than similarities between Communism and Democracy mean one is from another.  Similarities abound in many religions.  Hinduism has moral statements similar to Christianity as does Taoism.  But they are unrelated to each other.
     There are, however, several reasons working against the idea that the people who wrote the New Testament copied ideas from pagan myths.  First of all, the writers of the New Testament were Jews.  As Jews they would have nothing to do with paganism in any form.  They knew specifically that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament which is why they followed Him. Second, the Old Testament has almost all the New Testament themes from which a devout Jew would refer when writing the New Testament.  Third, there is no proof at all that the New Testament writers borrowed from pagan sources and incorporated them into the New Testament.  It is up to the critics to supply reasonable evidence for this if they want to hold the position.  Just saying it happened doesn't mean anything.  Fourth, so what if there are similarities?  What does it prove?  If two writers in the same city both write similar articles about the President of the U.S., does it mean one used another's concepts?  Not at all.  Similarities happen all the time when dealing with similar subjects.  Besides, it makes sense that common themes would be around an area at the same time in history when all nations served various gods.  Undoubtedly, some similarities will occur, but that doesn't mean one was borrowed from another.  Finally, there is another possibility worth examining.  The concepts of redemption, the incarnation, resurrection, etc., are prophesied in the Old Testament and these documents were around for hundreds and hundreds of years.  It is quite possible that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagans who incorporated Old Testament concepts since these documents existed prior to many of these pagan myths. 
      Nevertheless, following is a chart that exemplifies many of the themes that were revealed in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New.  It is easy to see that there is no need at all for the Christians to borrow from any source outside the Old Testament.

../kjv/John/john_5.htm#the - John 5:39 , "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me."

Annie,

You wrote:" http://www.islamicity.com/kjv/Gen/Gen_22.htm#1%C2%A0 - Gen. 22 is a great example of the sacrifice of Jesus, the Son in http://www.islamicity.com/dictionary/dic_t.htm#_1_192 - Typology represented by the sacrifice of Isaac.

If Gen.22 is really a great example of the sacrifice of Jesus, then Jesus should have been sacrifised as a burnt offering by God, who loved, admired and accepted burnt scarifices.

Since Jesus was not laid on a pyre, it cannot be applied to Jesus at all, not even an iota of that thought is valid.

This is something very important:

Gen.22:12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him." The same God allows Mary's son to be "killed" in a different way, not by the way of a burnt offering.

The example is pointless and incorrect! This is how the "fulfilling scripture" has to go and dig out of the so-called "Unfulfilled Scripture".

If God could have stopped Issac from getting slaughtered and burnt, surely God could have rescued Jesus from two pieces of timber!!

Annie:

You wrote: "Paul is saying that there is one God and there is only one God.  Paul is saying that there is one mediator between God and men and that is Messiah Jesus.   Paul is saying that Messiah Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all."

Let me re-write it for the sake of discussion:

"Paul is saying that there is one God and there is only one God.  Paul is saying that there is one mediator between God and men and that is Messiah Jesus. Paul is saying that Messiah Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all."

Couldn't the Messiah Jesus save all by living, instead of "dying" unnecessarily, like the Living God saved Isaac? Paul also specifically used the term "Man" for Jesus. Did Paul not?

AnnieTwo's statement: Nevertheless, following is a chart that exemplifies many of the themes that were revealed in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New.  It is easy to see that there is no need at all for the Christians to borrow from any source outside the Old Testament. 

My response:

Where does the Trinity come from?

From the line of Shem, Noah's other son, Abraham was called out of "Ur of the Chaldees" (Genesis 11:31; 12:1,2), the ancient Babylonian empire. His descendants were given the revelation of God by Moses from Mount Sinai. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" (Deuteronomy 6:4). No Hebrew scripture supports the idea of a trinity god. Some verses have been pressed into use by Trinitarians, but without success. For example, in the creation account, Genesis says, "God [elohim, plural.] created the heavens and the earth" (1:1). However, the plural does not have to do with number; it is "plentitude of might" (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, The Soncino Press). In any case, the verb "created" is singular, and would not indicate two gods, let alone three. Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament (Vol. XIV, 306). And the world renown "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" says, under the article on the Trinity in it, "The term 'Trinity' is NOT a biblical term....In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine...As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason." (International Encyclopedia of the Bible," Vol. 5, (page 3012)).

While he walked the earth, Jesus clearly acknowledged, "My Father is greater than I" (The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 116 in NT, John 14:29)) and that it was his Father who sent him, "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (The Holy Bible (King James Bible), American Bible Society, NY (page 10 in NT, Matthew 10:40)). He consistently acknowledged God as the source of power for his miracles and finally implored his Father, "yet not my will but thine be done." (The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 109 in NT, St. Luke 22:42)) he be the one sent and also the Sender and why would he pray to himself that not his will but His other will be done? It seems the Trinitarians only answer, "It's a mystery"?

If the trinity is supposed to be an unexplainable "mystery," why do the apostles always talk about revealing mysteries to Christians? "I would not have you ignorant of this mystery [about Jewish blindness] (1 the revelation of the mystery (The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 210 in NT, Romans 16:25)) the mystery hidden God hath revealed ( 1 Corinthians 2:7) Behold I show you a mystery (The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 227 in NT,1 Corinthians 15:51)) "having made known the mystery of his will" (The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 202 in NT, Ephesians 1:9)) "to make known the mystery of Christ" (The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 206 in NT, Ephesians 6:19)) "make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 210 in NT, Colossians 1:27)), etc. So how did the Christian Church accept a mystery of a trinity?

I repeat my question:

Where does the Trinity come from since no Hebrew scripture supports the idea of a trinity god. ?

My response: I have checked the verses above and I find that they have nothing to do with the Trinity. For example:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Job 33:4 The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

Amose 4:10 I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men have I slain with the sword, and have taken away your horses; and I have made the stink of your camps to come up unto your nostrils: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.

4:11 I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.

AnnieTwo's statement: Nevertheless, following is a chart that exemplifies many of the themes that were revealed in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New.  It is easy to see that there is no need at all for the Christians to borrow from any source outside the Old Testament. 

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

My response: Christians claim that what is unique in the case of Jesus, is that he is the only begotten Son of God, while the others are merely �sons of God�. However, God is recorded as saying to Prophet David, in Psalms 2:7, �I will tell the decree of the Lord: He said to me, �You are my son, today I have begotten you.� �

My comment: How could God contradict His own Word? Does God change His own mind? Had God forgotten about what He had said to Jesus and David?  God is the All Wise so God will not contradict Himself! So who did corrupt the Bible into a lie? Answer: The keepers of the Bible!

The Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the answer came directly from God Himself in the form of a short chapter of the Qur'an, which is considered to be the essence of the unity or the motto of monotheism. This is chapter 112, which reads:� In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone�.

Jesus is not the son of God for Jesus is the son of Mary. That is Jesus, son of Mary, in word of truth, concerning which they are doubting. It is not for God to take a son unto Him. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a thing. He but says to it "Be". and it is. (Quran 19:34-5).

The Bible itself calls Jesus the son of man so many times throughout the Bible to prove that Jesus is a human being and Jesus is not the son of God.

Qur�an clarifies that Jesus� virgin birth did not change the state of his humanity �Surely, the example of Jesus, in Allah�s sight, is like that of Adam.  He created him from dust and said: �Be!� and he was.� (Qur�an, 3:59).

The act of begetting is a physical act and such act is against God�s nature. The Qur�an 19:35 says: "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." (Maryam  19:35)

Therefore God has no sons for God is One and Only: Moses says "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy 6:4) , Jesus says "...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29) and the prophet Muhammad says "And your God is One God: There is no God but He, ..." (The Qur'an 2:163)

The act of begetting is a physical act and such act is against God�s nature. The Qur�an 19:35 says: "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." (Maryam  19:35)

Annie,

This is progress: "Yes, Paul used the word "man."  Jesus was a man.  Is this news to you?"

Good! Shall we then leave Jesus as no more than a man? No, it was never a news to me for I knew Jesus was always a man.

bmzsp wrote: Annie, This is progress: "Yes, Paul used the word "man."  Jesus was a man.  Is this news to you?" Good! Shall we then leave Jesus as no more than a man? No, it was never a news to me for I knew Jesus was always a man.

My response: Yes we Muslims know that Jesus is a man and he is a great prophet of Allah. Jesus is neither God nor the son of God according to the Holy Quran! I am glad to know that AnnieTwo admits that God has no sons! Thank you AnnieTwo and I appreciate this statement. May Allah the All Merciful God guides you to His true path...Ameen.

http://thetruereligion.org/modules/xfsection/index.php?category=1 - Former Christian Priests and Missionaries who have Embraced Islam : Abdullah al-Faruq Formerly Kenneth L. Jenkins, minister and elder of the Pentecostal Church says:

1) "Not a single one could explain how Jesus was supposedly God, and how, at the same time, he was supposedly the Father, Son and Holy Ghost wrapped up into one and yet was not a part of the trinity. Several preachers finally had to concede that they did not understand it but that we were simply required to believe it."

2)"Cases of adultery and fornication went unpunished. Some Christian preachers were hooked on drugs and had destroyed their lives and the lives of their families. Leaders of some churches were found to be homosexuals. There were pastors even guilty of committing adultery with the young daughters of other church members. All of this coupled with a failure to receive answers to what I thought were valid questions was enough to make me seek a change. That change came when I accepted a job in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."

3) "I was then given a video cassette of a debate between Shaykh Ahmed Deedat and Reverend Jimmy Swaggart. After seeing the debate I immediately became a Muslim." (To view this debate click http://www.islam.org/audio/ra622_4.ram" target=w2>here � requires RealPlayer). It is an interesting debate! 

AnnieTwo wrote: bmzsp wrote: Annie, This is progress: "Yes, Paul used the word "man."  Jesus was a man.  Is this news to you?" Good! Shall we then leave Jesus as no more than a man? No, it was never a news to me for I knew Jesus was always a man. How is this "progress?"  Christians have always known that Jesus was human.  But, as the apostles knew and as his followers knew and as Christians know, Jesus was more than a man.  The Qur'an says so too when it claims that Jesus was the Messiah.  The Messiah was to be a divine figure. Notice that Paul does not say that Jesus was "just a man." Annie

My response:

1) Please show me the Quranic verses that state Jesus was more than a man.

2) Please show me your proofs that state the apostles knew and as his followers knew and as Christians know, Jesus was more than a man. 

3) Please show me your proofs that state The Messiah was to be a divine figure.

bmzsp wrote: AbRah, Good quote and it is a solid one from paul. "In 1st Timothy, 2:5, Paul writes: �For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.� Paul, though I don't like him personally, at least has always been honest and bold with that statement. He never mixes Jesus with God. Although Paul only calls him son of God, he always maintains that Jesus was a man who could intercede with God. BUt for sure, Paul has never called him the GOD. This is a better explanation than trinity.

BMZ,

This is really an interesting comment coming from you since you have always told me that Paul "invented" the Trinity.   

George wrote: bmzsp wrote: AbRah, Good quote and it is a solid one from paul. "In 1st Timothy, 2:5, Paul writes: �For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.� Paul, though I don't like him personally, at least has always been honest and bold with that statement. He never mixes Jesus with God. Although Paul only calls him son of God, he always maintains that Jesus was a man who could intercede with God. BUt for sure, Paul has never called him the GOD. This is a better explanation than trinity. BMZ, This is really an interesting comment coming from you since you have always told me that Paul "invented" the Trinity.

My response:

Hey George why do you worship Jesus who is a man?  Only pagans worship men such as Pharoah, Japanese emperors etc. Even Paul called Jesus THE MAN by saying " THE MAN Jesus". Thank Allah for I worship Allah the true God and none is equal to Allah. Jesus is a man for he looks and behaves like a man  and he is made of flesh. The Bible and Quran say that none is like God so Jesus is not God ! And God will not change into a man and God is not made of flesh for none is like God!

Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar) shows how we can establish true faith by setting standards of truth. He illustrates a simple but effective method of finding out the right direction in our search for truth.

G.R. Miller is a mathematician and a theologian. He was active in Christian missionary work at a particular point of his life but he soon began to discover many inconsistencies in the Bible. In 1978, he happened to read the Qur'an expecting that it, too, would contain a mixture of truth and falsehood.

He discovered to his amazement that the message of the Qur'an was precisely the same as the essence of truth that he had distilled from the Bible. He became a Muslim and since then has been active in giving public presentations on Islam including radio and television appearances. He is also the author of several articles and publications about Islam.

Please visit   http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=lessons&lesson_id=297&scholar_id=30 - http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=lessons&l esson_id=297&scholar_id=30   if you wish to hear a lecture about The Devinity of Jesus.

Annie,

"I think everyone knows that the word "Trinity" is not in the New Testament.  It was a term that explains the concept which is derived from Scriptures."

Why was the concept derived, Annie? Was it because the twelve disciples or apostles could not teach and explain correctly what Jesus taught? It took 365 years and Augustine, an outsider who was possibly baptised on his deathbed, to enforce the Trinity, not even explained by Jesus' own apostles.

Jesus taught, "Worship only thy God the Lord with all your heart, mind and soul." What could be clearer than that?

This would be the prelude to my next question after I answer my own question on Qur'aan.

Given the fact that there has never been in the history of the Torah (Old Testament) the religion of God to be named after a Prophet (i.e. Adaminity, Abrahamity, Mosanity, etc.), I hope to explain that Jesus did not preach the religion of Christianity, but a religion that gives all Praise and Worship to The One God.

One of the questions I asked myself as I took an objective (second) look at Christianity was; where did the word Christianity come from and was the word ever mentioned to Jesus? Well, I did not find the word Christianity in the Bible, not even in a Bible dictionary. Specifically, I did not find in the Bible where Jesus called himself a Christian. 

The word Christian was first mentioned by a pagan to describe those who followed Jesus. It is mentioned one of three times in the New Testament by a pagan and Jew in Antioch about 43 AD, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16) long after Jesus left this earth. To accept the words of pagans as having any value or association with divinity, Jesus or God is contrary to the teachings of all Prophets.  

Jesus prophesied that people would worship him uselessly and believe in doctrines made by men (Matthew 15:9). 

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." This verse, Matthew 15:9, is further supported by these words of the Quran: 

"And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men: "Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?" He will say: "Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the All-Knower o fall that is hidden and unseen. 

Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allah) did command me to say: �Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.� And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were a Witness to all things. (This is a great admonition and warning to the Christians of the whole world)." (Al-Ma�idah 5:116-117) 

I found that Biblical verses like John 5:30, John 12:49, John 14:28, Isaiah 42:8 and Acts 2:22 support the above mentioned verses of the Quran. 

Question: If Christians are Christ-like, why are they not greeting each other with the words; Peace be with you (Salamu Alaikum), as Jesus did in Luke 24:36. As you may be aware, the greeting from one Muslim to another Muslim is Assalamu Alaikum; a Christ-like saying.

The doctrine of Trinity denies the Oneness of God by saying that God is One in Three so the Christians are not revering ONE GOD , they are revering THREE PERSONS!

It misleads people to Hell by promoting the worship of man!

Assalaamu alaikum:

To see a good article on A Muslims perspective on the Trinity doctrine go to  http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/trinity.htm - http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/trinity.htm  

The Trinity is a lie

Both the Noble Quran and the Bible claim that GOD Almighty is an Absolute One and only One:

"And your God is One God: There is no God but He, ..." (The Qur'an 2:163)

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.  (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4)"

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.  (From the NIV Bible, Mark 12:29)"

Notice also how Jesus said "our God", which included him to be under GOD Almighty's creation and Divine Authority, and not someone or an entity that is equal to GOD Almighty.

The Bible's New Testament also records Jesus saying: ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good�except God alone."   (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)" If Jesus doesn't consider himself as "good", then how can any sane person put him on the same level as GOD Almighty?

Also, another important point to notice in Mark 10:18 is the word "alone":   ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good�except God alone."   (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

Jesus in this verse is clearly giving exclusivity to GOD Almighty when he said "alone".  If Jesus was truly part of GOD Almighty and/or the trinity lie was true, then Jesus, to say the least, would not have said that. If he rejected being called �good�, and stated that only God is truly good, he clearly implies that he is not God.

 � The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not "Three". Refrain; better it is for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him -- (He is) above having a son� (4:171).

It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word "god," which can be made plural, as in "gods," or made feminine, as in "goddess." It is interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic.

             The One true God is a reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates with God. To a Muslim, Allah is the Almighty Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who is similar to nothing, and nothing is comparable to Him.

The Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the answer came directly from God Himself in the form of a short chapter of the Qur'an, which is considered to be the essence of the unity or the motto of monotheism. This is chapter 112, which reads:� In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone�.

My response: Your anology 1x1x1=1 is illogical since  the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit are three different Persons so you cannot use the same '1' for each Person. Lets us say The Son = 1 , the Father = 2 and the Holy Spirit = 3 so 1 x 2 x 3 = 6 !!!

Therefore the Trinity is a false doctrine invented by a group of corrupt Christian priests of Nicea to reject the Oneness of God by claiming that God is ONE in THREE PERSONS! By inventing the Trinity the corrupt Christian priests rejected Moses , Jesus and Muhammad who said that God was ONE and ONLY !

Moses , Jesus and Muhammad (peace and bless upon them) did not say that God is one in three!

Moses , Jesus and Muhammad(peace and bless upon them) said that God was ONE and ONLY:

concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical passage known as the "Shema" or the Jewish creed of faith: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus when he said: "...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again: "And your God is One God: There is no God but He, ..." (The Qur'an 2:163)

Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity - God being Three-in-One - is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three.

People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth.

             � The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not "Three". Refrain; better it is for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him -- (He is) above having a son� (4:171).

 It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word "god," which can be made plural, as in "gods," or made feminine, as in "goddess." It is interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic.

             The One true God is a reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates with God. To a Muslim, Allah is the Almighty Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who is similar to nothing, and nothing is comparable to Him. The Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the answer came directly from God Himself in the form of a short chapter of the Qur'an, which is considered to be the essence of the unity or the motto of monotheism. This is chapter 112, which reads:� In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone�.

If the Creator is Eternal and Everlasting, then His attributes must also be eternal and everlasting. He should not lose any of His attributes nor acquire new ones. If this is so, then his attributes are absolute. Can there be more than one Creator with such absolute attributes? Can there be, for example, two absolutely powerful Creators? A moment's thought shows that this is not feasible.

             The Qur'an summarizes this argument in the following verses:� God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him: for then each god would have taken of that which he created and some of them would have risen up over others� (Quran 23:91).

             � And why, were there gods in earth and heaven other than God, they (heaven and earth) would surely go to ruin� (Quran 21:22).

Who is Allah? � He is God; there is no god but He. He is the Knower of the unseen and the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God; there is no god but He. He is the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peace, the Guardian of the Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-Compeller, the All-Sublime. Glory be to God, above that they associate! He is God, the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Him; He is the Almighty, the All-Wise� (Quran 59:22-24).

With due respect, the most concise and uncomplicated explanation is found here:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (I John 5:7)

Three completely separate entities, all in one Triune Godhead.  How hard is that to understand?  I'm not insinuating you have to believe it, but it is certainly as plain as the nose on your face to understand.

Believe whatever you are called to believe, but don't insult my beliefs. I would never intentionally insult yours.  (If I'm not mistaken, we will ALL answer to God on Judgement Day for the insults and disrespect we have shown other human beings, regardless of their faith, gender, culture, race, or nationality.)  Are you going to be at peace when this day arrives?

God Bless Us,

Patty, you've got such a sweet avatar that it makes me go soft and sweet!

You quoted: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (I John 5:7)"

Patty, this was how John explained. It was John's own view and own statement, not Christ's view. I do not find anything of this sort in the Bible, taught by Jesus himself.

Aren't you relying more on what men thought and what men said?

Dear BMZ,

Thank you for the kind remark.  You're very "sweet" yourself.

You stated this:

"Patty, this was how John explained. It was John's own view and own statement, not Christ's view. I do not find anything of this sort in the Bible, taught by Jesus himself.

Aren't you relying more on what men thought and what men said?"

Jesus loved John very, very much.  I believe (and I don't expect you to believe it) that John's words are inspired by God, so that less than intellectual persons such as myself, will be able to fully understand God's entire plan in our lives.  So, yes, I suppose I do rely on what Jesus' disciples and prophets revealed in holy scriptures which, to Catholics/Christians, are the inspired word of God.  (Isn't it true that Muhammed was a man....and don't you also believe his words?  Or am I mistaken?)

God's Peace and Blessings!

Patty,

"Jesus loved John very, very much.  I believe (and I don't expect you to believe it) that John's words are inspired by God, so that less than intellectual persons such as myself, will be able to fully understand God's entire plan in our lives."

I am happy for you but do you believe it was the same John who wrote John? In fact, if that were true, his gospel should have been the first and only one? Don't you think so? 

So, yes, I suppose I do rely on what Jesus' disciples and prophets revealed in holy scriptures which, to Catholics/Christians, are the inspired word of God.  (Isn't it true that Muhammed was a man....and don't you also believe his words?  Or am I mistaken?)

Yes, Muhammad was just a man, an ordinary man and I believe in the words that were revealed to him which he recited to people but of course he did not write anything under inspiration.

BMZ said:

"Yes, Muhammad was just a man, an ordinary man and I believe in the words that were revealed to him which he recited to people but of course he did not write anything under inspiration."

Okay, that's good.  Basically, it's the same thing.  I believe the words of the disciples and prophets, much as you believe the revelations of Muhammed.  Whether he physically wrote it himself, or had someone write it for him is of no consequence.  It was revealed to him and you believe it. 

The same goes for me regarding the disciples and apostles and prophets.  Much was revealed to them by God....and I believe it.  There, that's not so hard to understand, is it?

God's Peace.

Assalaamu Alaikum:

An interesting quote from Exodus 20:

This was given to the prophet Moses (pbuh) by God:

 from The New American Standard Bible 

 Book of Exodus

The Ten Commandments

1 Then God spoke all these words, saying,

2 "I  am the LORD your God, who  brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. F402

3 "You  shall have no other gods  before  Me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an  idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 "You  shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous  God..., "

found at http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ex+20&t=nas&st=1&new=1&l=en - http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ex+20&t=nas&am p;st=1&new=1&l=en

CAn you explain to anyone how God can be "three" when he stated in his word that no other should be prayed to or worshipped except him?

This link shows it translated from the Hebrew:

http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ex+20:5&translation=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en - http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ex+20:5&am p;translation=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en

Can you tell me where it says three?

Just asking, thank you for all answers
 

We believe as I wrote a little earlier that there is one God --

1.  The Father (God)

2.  The Son (Jesus) aka the Word

3.  The Holy Spirit (Comforter, Paraclete)

These three entities, or completely separate beings form the TRIUNE Godhead.  Or the Holy Trinity.  In my Church we have a hymn which is very pretty.  One line in it goes,

Praise the Holy Trinity

Undivided Unity

Holy God, Mighty God

God immortal, be Adored.

In other words these three entities (God who is a Spirit, and the Holy Spirit, who of course is a Spirit...a Holy one at that, and Jesus who came to earth through the power of the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary was divine but in a human form)....and these three "entities" cannot be divided or separated because these 3 form the TRIUNE Godhead or the Holy Trinity...Trinity meaning 3.  The actual definition of the word trinity is the sum of 1 + 1 + 1.

I hope this helps explain the Trinity to you. 

(I am giving this website one more try.  I pray that it works out better this time.)  Thanks to all of you who have been so kind.

Peace to All!

bmzsp asked:

"I am happy for you but do you believe it was the same John who wrote John? In fact, if that were true, his gospel should have been the first and only one? Don't you think so?"

John did only write one gospel.  First John is not a gospel...only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are gospels.  Here is who wrote what :

John the Apostle (יוחנן "The LORD is merciful", Standard Hebrew Yoḥanan, Tiberian Hebrew Y�ḥānān) was one of the twelve apostles of Jesus. Christian tradition proclaims he is the same John who wrote:

• the Gospel of John and first epistle of John (the author of these is strictly referred to as John the Theologian and John the Evangelist)
• the second and third Epistle of John (the author of these is officially known, by decree of the Council of Rome, as John the Presbyter).
• the Book of Revelation (the author is strictly known as John the Divine and John of Patmos) - this book is formally called Apocalypse of St. John the Divine^[citation needed] - the term "divine" is an old term for "one who has had a revelation", while "apocalypse" is merely the Greek term for "revelation" (and only gained its modern heavily negative associations as a direct result of its association with the contents of the Book of Revelation).

You know, I wonder about the Gospel of Barnabas and how it actually contradicts the Quran and has a number of other errors.  Its suspect as much as any of the texts.  But, Brother Suleyman, you and I have already discussed that one over IM.

Dear Suleyman,

I am responding to your questions regarding the Gospel of Barnabas.  It is considered a medieval forgery in my Church.  And it certainly shouldn't be confused with the Epistle of Barnabas.  It actually contradicts Muslim beliefs and the Qu'ran. 

The Gospel of Barnabas (GB) is a well known late-medieval forgery (most likely 15th or 16th Century Spain) which purports to be a lost or suppressed gospel by the apostle Barnabas.  

Books describing the Gospel of Barnabas are probably only of interest for serious students of religious apologetics and religious history. Despite claims that GB is not, nor has it ever been, recognized as a legitimate historic text by main stream scholars, it does, however, have some appeal for the insight it provides into popular apologetics.

Perhaps the GB's most interesting aspect is its enduring appeal as an apologetic tool. Undoubtably historic texts can make effective evangelizing tools - the GB, however, appears to be poorly suited for this role. It is a clearly an inauthentic document and exposes a message contrary to the religion it professes to support.

With regard to authenticity its challenges are numerous:
- it refers to jubilees occurring every 100 years rather than every fifty as was the case in the early Christian epoch (changed to 100 years intervals in 14th century)
- uses the fourth century Latin vulgate translation of the Bible (challenging for first century author)
- claims that Jesus was born when Pilate was governor (26 or 27 A.D.)
- claims that Nazareth is a seashore or lakeshore village
- despite the editors apparent attempt to confuse GB with the first century Epistle of Barnabus or the fifth century apocryphal Acts of Barnabas there is no reference to this text by either Christian or Islamic writers prior to approximately 1600

Despite its fabricated nature, perhaps what makes its use as an apologetic tool even more surprising is its heretical theology: 
- contrary to the Quran Mohammad is portrayed as a Christ-like entity - the world was created for Muhammad
- Muhammad is an intercessor between God and man
- Contradicts Quran claim that Jesus is the Messiah

Overall, GB is an interesting read for students of religious apologetics. I cannot recommend the text for a broader audience - it is replete with misrepresentation and fabrication. Readers seeking a more serious examination of GB can see David Sox's the Gospel of Barnabas. Those interested in a discussion of GB within the genre of religious forgies may find J. Slomp's work helpful (some available for free on net). Those interested in serious comparative apologetics may wish to look at a series of public debates between Shabir Ally and William Craig.  You must read it with the understanding that it is a 16th century forgery.  But if you can keep that it mind, you may find it interesting.

Blessings to you.

Thank you very much for your kind explanations Dear Patty,i have always appreciated your sincere concerns on to the board issues proving how can a  satisfied soul should be with divine,i represent my best regards to you for your addings to the world peace,to your positive energy inspires us Jesus(a.s.) that some of our Muslim friends may take consider from your good examples as in behaviors,

Dear Patty,i avoid to discuss on some of the issues with my absent English for not causing some misunderstandings.This is why i only read in the board or just make some fun with cute ones...

If you have time to consider,i want to show some of the writings about Barnabas and about his Gospel.I have been reading the life of the last prophet from a three volume set written by Maulana Maududi,it is in Turkish and really give some good examples about Barnabas and his Gospel,i should find a English translation of his three volume set of the life of the last prophet for copying his writings about Barnabas but i can't bcs not available,Maulana Maududi is one of my favorite scholar who is also well known as the father of North American Muslims,he gave so much efforts for improving their knowledges,for example Jamal Badawi is from his school...

Dear Patty here are some pages may be a example of the writings of Maulana Maududi,with your words above you have said it contradicts with qur'an but in some of the cases it is like from the mouth of Qur'an.Could you please analyze for me if you have time and will not mind.

Best regards,Suleyman

to be continued....

GOSPEL OF BARNABAS/WIKIPEDIA

Analysis

This work bears strong parallels with the Islamic faith, not only mentioning Muhammad by name, but including the shahada (chapter 39). It is strongly anti-Pauline and anti-Trinitarian in tone. In this work, Jesus is described as a prophet and not the son of God, while Paul is called "the deceived". Furthermore, the Gospel of Barnabas states that Jesus escaped crucifixion by being raised alive to heaven; while Judas Iscariot the traitor � miraculously transformed � was crucified in his place. These beliefs; in particular that Jesus is a prophet of God and raised alive without being crucified; conform with Islamic beliefs. Other passages however conflict with the text/teachings of the Qur'an; as for instance in the account of the Nativity, where Mary is said to have given birth to Jesus without pain; or as in Jesus's ministry, where he permits the drinking of wine and enjoins monogamy. Narrative themes, and some highly distinctive phraseology, are shared with the Divine Comedy of Dante (Ragg). If (as most students surmise) the Gospel of Barnabas is seen as an attempted synthesis of elements from both Christianity and Islam, then sixteenth and seventeenth century parallels can be suggested in Morisco and anti-Trinitarian writings; but there are no known earlier precursors.

The Spanish version includes an account of the discovery of the Gospel of Barnabas in the private study of Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590), an account which appears to many students to be historically incongruous; and this, together with paleographic inconsistencies in the surviving Italian manuscript, has led a number of scholars to conclude that the two known manuscripts may have been prepared in support of an exercise in forensic falsification, intended to discredit or incriminate some leading Catholic ecclesiastic in the Roman Curia of the 1590s (David Sox; The Gospel of Barnabas 1984). There are a number of contemporary parallels for such an exercise - most notably the "Casket Letters" supposedly forged to incriminate Mary Queen of Scots. Some scholars who maintain this view consequently dismiss the entire Gospel as a hoax; but the majority would consider it more likely that the supposed forgers made use of a pre-existing heterodox text.

The Gospel of Barnabas was little known outside academic circles until recent times, when a number of Muslims have taken to publishing it in order to argue against the orthodox Christian conception of Jesus. It resonates better with existing Muslim views than with Christianity in several respects: it foretells the coming of Muhammad by name; rather than describing the crucifixion of Jesus, it describes him being raised up into heaven, similar to the description of Elijah in 2 Kings, Chapter 2; and it calls Jesus a "prophet" whose mission was restricted to the "house of Israel". However, it differs from Islamic conceptions in at least two important respects; it reports that Muhammad, not Jesus, was the Messiah, whereas the Qur'an and Hadith both describe Jesus as the Messiah, and no orthodox variety of Islam calls Muhammad the Messiah. In addition, it explictly denies the Islamic (and Christian) doctrines of God's absolute judgment and foreknowledge � in asserting that, in the matter of salvation: "Our God waits for man to be penitent" (Chapter 114); such that the souls of the wicked in Hell could nevertheless be saved at the end times, if they become converted to penitence (Chapter 113); whereas the righteous �even the saints and prophets� cannot be safe from the fear of damnation; as the possibility cannot be excluded that they might at some future time, through over-confidence in their own righteousness, fall into pride (Chapter 112).

It contains an extended polemic against the doctrine of predestination (Chapter 164), and in favour of justification by faith; arguing that the eternal destination of the soul to Heaven or Hell is neither pre-determined by God's grace (as in Calvinism), nor the judgement of God, in his mercy, on the faith of believers on Earth (as in orthodox Islam). Instead it states that all those condemned at the last judgment, but who subsequently respond in faith, who demonstrate unfeigned penitence, and who make a free choice of blessedness, will eventually be offered salvation (Chapter 137). Only those whose persistent pride prevents them from sincere repentance will remain forever in Hell. Such radically Pelagian beliefs in the sixteenth century were found amongst the anti-Trinitarian Protestant traditions later denoted as Unitarianism. Some sixteenth century anti-Trinitarian divines sought to reconcile Christianity, Islam and Judaism; on the basis of very similar arguments to those presented in the Gospel of Barnabas, arguing that if salvation remains unresolved until the end times, then any one of the three religions could be a valid path to heaven for their own believers. The Spaniard, Michael Servetus denounced the orthodox Christian formulation of the Trinity (demonstrating the only explicit reference to the Trinity in the New Testament to be a later interpolation); and hoped thereby to bridge the doctrinal divide between Christianity and Islam. In 1553 he was executed in Geneva under the authority of John Calvin, but his teachings remained very influential amongst Italian Protestant exiles. In the late sixteenth century many anti-Trinitarians, persecuted both by Calvinists and by the Inquisition, sought refuge in Transylvania; then under Turkish overlordship and with close links to Istanbul. (Christopher J. Burchill:The Heidelberg Antitrinitarians Bibliotheca Dissidentium: vol XI, Baden-Baden 1989,308p).

Included in chapter 145 is "The little book of Elijah"; which sets out instructions for a righteous life of ascetisim and eremetic spirituality. Over the succeeding 47 chapters, Jesus is recorded as developing the theme that the ancient prophets, specifically Obadiah, Haggai and Hosea, were holy hermits following this religious rule; and contrasting their followers - termed "true Pharisees" - with the "false Pharisees" who lived in the world, and who constituted his chief opponents. The "true Pharisees" are said to congregate on Mount Carmel. This accords with the teaching of the medieval Carmelites, who lived as an eremetic congregation on Carmel in the 13th century; but who claimed (without any evidence) to be direct successors of Elijah and the Old Testament prophets. In 1291 the Mamluk advance into Syria compelled the friars on Carmel to abandon their monastery; but on dispersing through Western Europe they found that Western Carmelite congregations - especially in Italy - had largely abandoned the eremetic and ascetic ideal, adopting instead the conventual life and mission of the other Mendicant orders. Some students consider that the ensuing 14th-16th century controversies can be found reflected in the text of the Gospel of Barnabas.

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of an Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad. But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, this is evident sorcery!" (Sura 61:6)

(Ahmad is another name of Muhammad.) More traditionally, Muslim scholars regard the New Testament's mentions of the Paraclete (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7) as referring to Muhammad. The Greek word "paraclete" is translated "Counsellor" and refers to the Holy Spirit. This similar to the Greek "periklutos" which can be translated as "admirable one"; or in Arabic, "Ahmad".

"Jesus answered: `The name of the Messiah is admirable, for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in a celestial splendour. God said: "Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereof I make thee a present, insomuch that whoso bless thee shall be blessed, and whoso shall curse thee shall be accursed. When I shall send thee into the world I shall send thee as my messenger of salvation, and thy word shall be true, insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail, but thy faith shall never fail." Mohammed is his blessed name.' Then the crowd lifted up their voices, saying: `O God, send us thy messenger: O Admirable One, come quickly for the salvation of the world!'" Barnabas 97:9-10. The Italian manuscript replaces "Admirable One" with "Muhammad" [4].

However, while there are many passages where the Gospel of Barnabas sets out alternative readings to parallel pericopes found in the canonical gospels, none of the references to Muhammad by name occurs in such a synoptic passage; and in particular, none of the "Muhammad" references in Barnabas corresponds to a "Paraclete" reference in canonical John. There is only one instance where the Gospel of Barnabas might be understood as "correcting" a known canonical pericope, so as to record a prophecy by Jesus of the (unnamed) Messenger of God:

As mentioned above, these pronouncements appear to contradict Islamic belief. However, the well-known Muslim debater Ahmed Deedat argues that, since "Messiah" merely means "anointed", it can be attributed to any prophet, and Jesus would have meant Muhammad was anointed by God.

However, regarding messiah as synonymous with anointed is inconsistent with the complex connotations of messiah by the Jews of the first century. See Messiah. Messiah referred to an individual; two people could not both be the Messiah. The Messiah would be a Jewish leader, fighting with the Jews to restore them to a secure nation. Islam does not attribute any of this to Muhammad.

If the author of the Gospel of Barnabas had experience in a Christian community, he would understand the meaning of messiah differently. In Christendom, it has taken the connotation of a prophecied ruler who saves believers from damnation. This description fits well with Muslims' view of Muhammad. (Note that Muslims do not believe Muhammad is a savior the way Christians believe Jesus to be; Muhammad reveals the Qur'an which allows Muslims to escape hell.)

"Whereupon Jesus said: 'Ye deceive yourselves; for David in spirit calleth him lord, saying thus: "God said to my lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. God shall send forth thy rod which shall have lordship in the midst of thine enemies." If the messenger of God whom ye call Messiah were son of David, how should David call him lord? Believe me, for verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac.'" (Barnabas 43:10)

Hajj Sayed (Senior Member in CIMS), in his new book in Egypt, compares this to the following statement from the canonical Bible:

"What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" (Matthew 22:42-46)

The high priest answered: "This I ask of you, and I do not seek to slay you, wherefore tell us: Who was this son of Abraham?" Jesus answered: "The zeal of your honour, O God, inflames me, and I cannot hold my peace. Truly I say, the son of Abraham was Ishmael, from whom must be descended the Messiah promised to Abraham, that in him should all the tribes of the earth be blessed." Then was the high priest wroth, hearing this, and cried out: "Let us stone this impious fellow, for he is an Ishmaelite, and has spoken blasphemy against Moses and against the Law of God." (Barnabas 208:1-2)

Here, one version of the Gospel of Barnabas also quotes Jesus as saying that the sacrificed son of Abraham was Ishmael not Isaac, conforming to Islamic belief but disagreeing with Jewish and Christian belief. A connection might also be drawn between the last paragraph's statement that "in him should all the tribes of the earth be blessed", and the meaning of the name "Muhammad", the "Praised (or Blessed) One". (Cf.Life of Prophet Muhammad).

And having said this, Jesus smote his face with both his hands, and then smote the ground with his head. And having raised his head, he said: "Cursed be every one who shall insert into my sayings that I am the son of God" (53:6)

And having said this Jesus went out of the Temple. And the common people magnified him, for they brought all the sick folk whom they could gather together, and Jesus having made prayer gave to all their health: whereupon on that day in Jerusalem the Roman soldiery, by the working of Satan, began to stir up the common people, saying that Jesus was the God of Israel, who was come to visit his people." (69:6)

Jesus answered: "And you; what say you that I am?" Peter answered: "You are Christ, son of God". Then was Jesus angry, and with anger rebuked him, saying: "Begone and depart from me, because you are the devil and seek to cause me offences" (70:1)

Jesus said again: "I confess before heaven, and call to witness everything that dwells upon the earth, that I am a stranger to all that men have said of me, to wit, that I am more than man. For I am a man, born of a woman, subject to the judgment of God; that live here like as other men, subject to the common miseries" (94:1)

Then answered the priest, with the governor and the king, saying: "Distress not yourself, O Jesus, holy one of God, because in our time shall not this sedition be any more, seeing that we will write to the sacred Roman senate in such wise that by imperial decree none shall any more call you God or son of God." Then Jesus said: "With your words I am not consoled, because where you hope for light darkness shall come; but my consolation is in the coming of the Messenger, who shall destroy every false opinion of me, and his faith shall spread and shall take hold of the whole world, for so has God promised to Abraham our father." (97:1)

This conforms entirely with Muslim belief, according to which Jesus is a prophet and will come back to earth in the future and declare to the world that he is "a Servant of God". According to Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki in his audio lessons Lives of the Prophets, the first thing that prophet Jesus said when he was in the cradle "I am a servant of God", and the first thing that Jesus will say when he will come back to earth will be the same "I am a servant of God". According to the Qur'an:

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! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle? He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah (God). He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable; 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)"! Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah (God) that He beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. (Mary:27-35)

Hajj Sayed argues that Galatians's description of the dispute between Paul and Barnabas supports the idea that the Gospel of Barnabas existed at the time of Paul. Blackhirst has suggested, by contrast, that Galatian's account of this argument could be the reason the gospel's writer attributed it to Barnabas.[5] Paul writes in (Galatians Chapter 2):

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray." (Galatians 2:11-14)

Paul was attacking Peter and Barnabas for "trying to satisfy the Jews" by sticking to their laws, such as circumcision. This shows that, at that point, Barnabas was following Peter and disagreeing with Paul. Some feel it also suggests that the inhabitants of Galatia at his time were using a gospel or gospels disagreeing with Paul's beliefs, which Gospel of Barnabas could be one of them (although the Gospel of Peter would seem a more natural candidate, as in the light of the second letter.) To Galatian's account we may compare the Introductory Chapter of Gospel of Barnabas, where we read:

"Dearly beloved the great and wonderful God hath during these past days visited us by his prophet Jesus Christ in great mercy of teaching and miracles, by reason whereof many, being deceived of Satan, under presence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained of God for ever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul hath been deceived, whereof I speak not without grief; for which cause I am writing that truth which I have seen and heard, in the intercourse that I have had with Jesus, in order that ye may be saved, and not be deceived of Satan and perish in the judgment of God. Therefore beware of every one that preacheth unto you new doctrine contrary to that which I write, that ye may be saved eternally." (Introduction To Gospel of Barnabas)

In this context, supporters also note that Peter was from the original 12 disciples of Jesus, and Barnabas was one of the early disciples of Jesus, while Paul, a Roman, hadn't lived with Jesus, and had been accustomed to persecute his followers before his conversion.

Acts 9:26-27: "And when Saul [Paul] was come to Jerusalem he assayed to join himself to the disciples, but they were all afraid of him and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles"

Some readers have noted that the Gospel of Barnabas contains a number of apparent anachronisms and historical incongruities:

• It has Jesus sailing across the Sea of Galilee to Nazareth - which is actually inland; and from thence going "up" to Capernaum - which is actually on the lakeside (chapters 20-21); though this is contested by Blackhirst, who says that the traditional location of Nazareth is itself questionable).

• Jesus is said to have been born during the rule of Pontius Pilate, which began after the year 26.

• Barnabas appears not to realize that 'Christ' and 'Messiah' are translations of the same word (christos), describing Jesus as "Jesus Christ" yet claiming that 'Jesus confessed and said the truth, "I am not the Messiah"' (ch. 42).

• There is reference to a jubilee which is to be held every hundred years (Chapter 82), rather than every fifty years as described in Leviticus: 25. This anachronism appears to link the Gospel of Barnabas to the declaration of a Holy Year in 1300 by Pope Boniface VIII; a Jubilee which he then decreed should be repeated every hundred years. In 1343 the interval between Holy Years was reduced by Pope Clement VI to fifty years.

• In Chapter 91, the "Forty Days" is referred to as an annual fast. This corresponds to the Christian tradition of fasting for forty days in Lent; a practice that is not witnessed earlier than the Council of Nicaea (325). Nor is there a forty days fast in Judaism of the period (see Mishnah, Tractate: Taanith "Days of Fasting")

• Where the Gospel of Barnabas includes quotations from the Old Testament, these correspond to readings as found in the Latin Vulgate; rather than as found in either the Greek Septuagint, or the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

Other readers point out that the four gospel texts recognised as canonical are themselves not without anachronisms (as in Luke 2:3, where Quirinius's governorship of Syria overlaps unhistorically with the reign of Herod the Great); nor are they without comparable incongruities (as in the account of the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, which both state this as taking place - unhistorically - on the night of the Passover festival).

Some Islamic organizations cite this work in support of the Islamic view of Jesus; in particular, the noted Muslim thinkers Rashid Rida in Egypt and Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi in Pakistan have given it qualified acceptance (though the latter rejects its naming of Muhammad as an interpolation). While some Muslim scholars also agree that this Gospel of Barnabas is fabricated or has been changed over time, others believe that Barnabas himself wrote the Gospel, whereas the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by followers of Paul long after the events they describe, and that therefore the Gospel of Barnabas is more authentic than the other Gospels. Some Muslims take a position between these poles, suggesting that, while the work contains "Muslim interpolations"[6], it nonetheless consists mainly of early material that contradicts Christian traditions and confirms Muslim beliefs.

Although the Gospel of Barnabas is, in several respects, inconsistent with Islamic teaching, some Muslim scholars cite this as evidence of the genuineness of the gospel by arguing that no Muslim would fake a document and have it contradict the Qur'an. They believe the contradictions of the Qur'an in the Gospel of Barnabas are signs of textual corruption (which Muslims already ascribe for a majority of the Bible.) The difference is that the Gospel of Barnabas is not as corrupt as other religious works, and still maintains the truth about Jesus not being crucified and not being God or son of God.

The Vatican did not, and does not change texts of authentic ancient writings.  This is yet **yawn** another myth (I detest using the word "lie") against Holy Mother Church.  Perhaps you have confused the Epistle of Barnabas, which is authentic, with the Gospel of Barnabas, which is a medieval forgery, and that is agreed upon by nearly all recognized religions.

St. Barnabas was a wonderful man, a Christian, and a very good friend of St. Paul.  But facts remain facts, Suleyman, and as great a man as he was, (he was a SAINT no less) St. Barnabas did NOT write the Gospel of Barnabas, he wrote the Epistle of Barnabas.  Quite a difference. 

Peace to you.

Patty

My Dear Suleyman,

I sincerely hope you are not going to allow yourself to be misled by this forgery/trickery, which was written to confuse the faith of both Christianity and Islam.  This is not an inspired book.  Please don't allow yourself to be deceived into thinking otherwise.  For your benefit, I offer you the following evidence:

The Gospel of Barnabas is an apocryphal gospel. That is, it is a life of Jesus purportedly written by a first-hand observer that is at variance with the picture(s) presented in the Bible. However, it is unique among apocrypha in that it is a Muslim gospel; that is, it presents Jesus as a human prophet, not the son of God, and as a forerunner of Muhammad. According to western scholarship, it is a fourteenth-century forgery, extant now only in Spanish and Italian manuscripts, but even among scholars there is disagreement as to whether or not some some of the material contained in the book is older. The Gospel has been picked up by some modern Muslims, though, as an authentic and ancient record of events, and there are many different printed versions available from various Muslim publishing houses, all based heavily on the version by the Raggs presented here. It must be stressed, however, that belief in this Gospel is in no way an article of Islamic faith, and this site is not the place to discuss either the authenticity of the book or how widespread belief in or even knowledge of it is in the Islamic world. A search on Google will turn up dozens of pages and even entire sites devoted to discussion of the Gospel of Barnabas from all manner of perspectives�Christian, Muslim, and scholarly�to which sites we must defer for discussion of the topic. Regardless of the provenance of the document, it is an interesting read, similar to the many religious romances of the Mediterranean world, such as the apocryphal acts of the apostles (located http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/acts.htm - here at the Noncanonical homepage) and the books of sacred history from the east, a few of which are located http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/index.htm#eastern - here at sacred-texts.  (For futher information, go to the attached link)  http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/gbar/index.htm - http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/gbar/index.htm

And another very good site:

The "Gospel of Barnabas" in recent research

This article will deal with the following subjects in paragraphs of unequal length:

• http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#Summary - Summary
• http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#Preface - Preface
• http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#Intro - Introduction

1. http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#AAA - Forgeries as a cultural danger . Dr Grafton, Princeton.
2. http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#BBB - The Gospel of Barnabas compared with other forgeries .
3. http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#CCC - Barnabas among other "new" gospels
4. http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#DDD - A Spanish origin ? Dr E.Garcia Gomez and Dr.M.de Epalza.
5. http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#DDD - A Morisco author ? Dr L.F.Bernab�, Alicante.
6. http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#FFF - The Prophet Muhammad as the Messiah ? Dr.G.A.Wiegers, Leiden.
7. http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#GGG - Worldwide reception . Dr C.Schirrmacher, Bonn.
8. http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#HHH - Intermezzo on the classification of Barnabas studies .
9. http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#III - A Samaritan author ? Prof.J.Bowman, Australia.
10. http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#JJJ - An Ebionite source ? R.Blackhirst, Australia.
11. http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#KKK - Barnabas, more authentic ? Maulana Mawdudi, Lahore.
12. http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#LLL - Fourfold yet one .

• http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#Foot - Footnotes

Introduction http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#bottom"> http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm#top">

The so-called Gospel of Barnabas (abbreviated in this article with the capital letters GB; GBI= the Italian, GBS the Spanish text, etc...) is a forgery by all definitions. I quote by way of example the following definition from the article "Literary forgery" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "A forgery is essentially a piece of work created or modified with an intention to deceive" (Fn01). The 1907 critical edition of this gospel by Lonsdale and Laura Ragg established this fact with such force of conviction that it had "the effect of a death-blow to scholarly regard in the West" (Fn02). That was the reason why their critical edition went further unnoticed in Western theological scholarship, though copies of it remained on the shelves of libraries and were never removed, destroyed or hidden, as some Muslim polemists have claimed.

But ninety years later we have to admit that the polemical interest in this spurious gospel in some Muslim circles continues unabated. Within the context of this polemical interest, resulting in a number of new translations with often very prejudiced introductions, arguments against its authencity have not yet been taken seriously. The unwillingness to do so may partly be understood, though not excused, by the fact that these arguments were proffered by missionaries and clergymen who, in the view of these Muslim polemists were the successors of the old anti-Islamic Christian controversialists and apologists of the ninenteenth century. They failed to see that missionaries like Prof.Dr.H.Bergema, Dr.W.F.Campbell, Dr.W.H.T.Gairdner, Fr.Dr.Jacques Jomier and myself had no other interest but getting this stumbling block out of the way in order to commence dialogues and establish good relations and cooperation with Muslims for the sake of peaceful coexistence (Fn03).

http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm - http://www.chrisl*ges.de/barnarom.htm

 

This forgery can be obtained from The Vatican, but is mostly of value to theologians and scholars, and you would have to order it.  However, if you would be so interested as to want to research it for yourself, you may do so:

Bibliographic record

Uniform title : Evangelium Bartholomaei. Title : Fragments grecs et latine de l'�vangile de Barth�lemy. Publication : Paris, J. Gabalda, Date of publication : 1913. Physical description : 78 p. 25 cm. Note : Extrait de la Revue biblique, avril-juillet 1913". In testa al front.: Dom Andr� Wilmart O.S.B. et Eug�ne Tisserant".  Language : Frantais Date of record : 940919 http://www.vaticanlibrary.vatlib.it/BAVT/home.asp?LANGUAGE=eng&DPT=gen - http://www.vaticanlibrary.vatlib.it/BAVT/home.asp?LANGUAGE=e ng&DPT=gen   I will always be glad to help you in any way I possibly can....but I sincerely hope you do not allow yourself to be deceived by this false gospel...false to Christians and Muslims alike. God's Peace.

-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.

AnnieTwo wrote: Suleyman wrote: Dear Annie,which Gospel of Barbanas you are talking about?,the one before changed by Vatican?,the one original copy of Barnabas's Gospel used to be in the library of Vatican? or the one the original copy used to be in Oxford's Library/or the one changed?...Maulana Maududi was one of the rare ones who had found the chance of reading the original text,the scholar you have mentioned in your post discusses on the changed Gospel of Barnabas with any wisement does not caring the happenings behind,a scholar can not touch a issue like that,personally simple work...ok,this is why this discussion can not go any further unfortunatly because of the original texts flew away...Thank you very much for your considerations,i just wanted add some points from the one who read the original text,i have got more evidences on the issue but i avoid to tell,you know it needs more english... I am talking about the one published by A&B Publishers Group, with a foreword by Iman Muhammad Armiya Nu'man.  In the introduction "How the Gospel of Barnabas Survived" it says, "The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the churches of Alexandria till 325 A.D. The author of this book confuses the "gospel" of Barnabas with the Epistle of Barnabas.  I think that is why some Muslims are tricked into thinking that the GOB is authentic when it is not. Did you know that a Muslim rewrote the Christian Gospel in 1979 to make it "Islamic?" Annie

Dear Annie,also best regards to your replies...take care...

The best way to respond to a question on the Trinity is to use an example that people can understand, as Jesus did with his parables.

The Trinity is like the Sun.  God the father is the Sun.  The Holy Spirit is the warmth that comes from the Sun.  Jesus Christ is the light that you see from the Sun.  You wouldn't say that there was more than one Sun, though, because you see only one Sun.  That would be irrational.

Belief in the Trinity is available to Christians because of the different ways that God has manifested himself to us.  We know of God the Father through Abraham.  We know of the Holy Spirit because it descended upon the Apostles in Acts.  Christ made it known to them that this would happen.  We know of Jesus Christ as God because he said, when he was asked,"Are you the Christ,^[f] the Son of the Blessed One?"

Welcome, Aquinian

Thanks for giving up a better example instead of water, ice and vapour/steam.

The Primary Source is still the SUN. The light itself is invisble but illuminates when it falls on something and heat/warmth is felt when the light is obstructed. The light and heat are secondary results and they are nothing on their own. They need a source to propagate them.

I am a Muslim but I live in a place full of Buddhists and Zennists, also called Zen Buddhists. I am sure you have heard about Zen. They have a beautiful saying which I really admire and that is:

"If you want to enjoy the beauty and the sight of the lovely moon, you don't have to point a finger at it and no one has to look at your finger and then look at the moon. Just look direct and appreciate it's beauty. It is right there before your very own eyes."  

BMZ

bmzsp wrote: "If you want to enjoy the beauty and the sight of the lovely moon, you don't have to point a finger at it and no one has to look at your finger and then look at the moon. Just look direct and appreciate it's beauty. It is right there before your very own eyes."   BMZ

That's nice

DavidC wrote: We sing a Buddist hymn in my church.  Amaze Zen Grace.

bmzsp wrote: The Primary Source is still the SUN. The light itself is invisble but illuminates when it falls on something and heat/warmth is felt when the light is obstructed. The light and heat are secondary results and they are nothing on their own. They need a source to propagate them.

You make a good point.

The Sun is a primary source of light/heat for the Earth.  I would argue that the light/heat that you feel from the Sun makes it what it is.  If you did not feel light or heat from the Sun, you would die, no?  "And by his stripes, we are healed."  :)

A guitar string is the primary source of the guitar string sound, but you would not hear anything if the result of the string was not a sound.  One could say that the sound is just as important as the string itself.

One might say that the Sun is necessarily warm and bright.  If it were not, it would no longer be the Sun.

David, David,

"We sing a Buddist hymn in my church.  Amaze Zen Grace."

That was absolutely a good one.  

Thanks for the understanding, Aquinian. It was a pleasure to have exchanged thoughts with you.

BMZ

This is an interesting article about the "Nicene Council" and some of the origins of some of the theories in Christian religions.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm - http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.h tm