|
1.2.5: Historical origin of the "Trinity"
myth
"And you shall
know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free." John
8:32
Mr. J says: "Most "proofs" against the traditional
teachings of Christianity consist of pitting one passage of
Scripture against another." Should it not be impossible
to "pit one verse of the Bible against another"?
Should the verses of the Bible not be consistent? Should
they not reinforce each other rather that refute each other?
What kind of logic is this?
As we shall now begin to see, humanity has over the ages
taken great liberties with the text of the Bible. This has
ultimately resulted in countless contradictions between the
verses. This means that as a result of this continuous
unrelenting tampering, the message of the Bible can no
longer be trusted as the original 100% unchanged word of
God. The Bible itself bears witness that a "false witness"
will always result in discrepancy (Mark 14:56). Mr. J
continues, "...and almost always taking such passages out
of context."
Please go back to such verses as "I and my father are
one" and the many others which we have just dealt with
in the last two sections and see whether Muslims or the
Church quote the Bible out of context? Please show me where
I have been unjust or unfaithful in my presentation of the
verses. If the Bible had remained 100% the word of God then
it would be impossible for it's verses to contradict each
other, however, if mankind has been taking liberties with
the words of God then the verses will indeed contradict
themselves: "Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)?
Had it been from other than Allah, they would have surely
found therein much discrepancy." The Qur'an,
Al-Nissa(4):82. Why not apply the same test to the
Bible?
"The Christian message about Jesus revolves around
three facts: the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the
resurrection." Have we now totally given up on such
matters as the "Trinity," the "original sin," the
"atonement," and so forth...? We have already disproved all
of these. "Prove from the Bible or otherwise that any one
of these three things are not true, and like a three-legged
stool the truth of the message would collapse." Please
go back and have another look at your stool. Does it not
need the doctrines of "Trinity," "begotten son of God,"
"original sin" and "atonement." In order to remain standing?
If you would like, you can find many very serious
discrepancies in the narration of the crucifixion and many
other matters in Ahmed Deedat's books "The Choice," and
"Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction," as well as his many other
publications (you may get a sample from sections 2.1 and
2.2).
But someone may now say: "If the Trinity was not revealed
by God Almighty or Jesus (pbuh) then why does Christianity
believe in it?" The answer lies in the council of Nicea of
325 CE.
In "The New Catholic Encyclopedia" (Bearing the
Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating
official approval) we get a glimpse of how the concept of
the Trinity was not introduced into Christianity until close
to four hundred years after Jesus (pbuh):
"... It is difficult in the second half of the 20th
century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward
account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and
theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity.
Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other,
present a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have
happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes
and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing
number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of
Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious
qualification. There is also the closely parallel
recognition on the part of historians of dogma and
systematic theologians that when one does speak of an
unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of
Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th
century. It was only then that what might be called the
definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God in three Persons'
became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and
thought ... it was the product of 3 centuries of
doctrinal development" (emphasis added).
"The New Catholic Encyclopedia," Volume XIV, p. 295
They admit it!!! Jesus (pbuh), John, Matthew, Luke,
Mark, all of the apostles, and even Paul, were completely
unaware of any "Trinity." !!
So what did exactly happen in this fourth century CE? Let
us ask Mr. David F. Wright, a senior lecturer in
Ecclesiastical History at the University of Edinburough. Mr.
Wright has published a detailed account of the development
of the doctrine of the "Trinity." We read:
"...Arius was a senior presbyter in charge of
Baucalis, one of the twelve 'parishes' of Alexandria. He was
a persuasive preacher, with a following of clergy and
ascetics, and even circulated his teaching in popular verse
and songs. Around 318 CE, he clashed with Bishop Alexander.
Arius claimed that Father alone was really God; the Son was
essentially different from his father. He did not possess by
nature or right any of the divine qualities of immortality,
sovereignty, perfect wisdom, goodness, and purity. He did
not exist before he was begotten by the father. The father
produced him as a creature. Yet as the creator of the rest
of creation, the son existed 'apart from time before all
things'. Nevertheless, he did not share in the being of God
the Father and did not know him perfectly." Wright goes on
to demonstrate in this book how before the third century CE
the "three" were separate in Christian belief and each had
his or it's own status.
"Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity,"
chapter on "Councils and Creeds,"
Tertullian (155-220AD), a lawyer and presbyter of the
third-century Church in Carthage, was the first Christian to
coin the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that
the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but
all are of one being of substance with the Father
(Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, V4, p. 711).
About this time, two separate events were about to lead
up to the official recognition of the church by the Roman
empire. On the one hand, Emperor Constantine, the pagan
emperor of the Romans, began to notice the increasing number
of converts to the new faith among his subjects. They were
no longer a petty fringe sect of no great concern to the
empire, rather, their presence was becoming increasingly
noticeable, and the severe division and animosity between
their ranks was beginning to pose a serious threat to the
internal stability of the empire as a whole.
On the Christian front, controversy over the matter of
the Trinity had in 318C.E. once again just blown up between
two church men from Alexandria, Arius, the deacon, and
Alexander, his bishop. Now Emperor Constantine stepped into
the fray. The emperor sent these men many letters
encouraging them to put aside their "trivial" disputes
regarding the nature of God and the "number" of God, etc. To
one who had become accustomed to being surrounded by
countless gods, and goddesses, and demi-gods, and man-gods,
and incarnations of gods, and resurrections of gods, and so
forth, the issue of whether a given sect worshipped one god
or three gods or "three gods in one" was all very trivial
and inconsequential.
After several repeated attempts by the emperor to pacify
them failed, he finally found himself in 325 CE faced with
two serious controversies that divided his Christian
subjects: the observance of the Passover on Easter Sunday,
and the concept of the Trinity. Emperor Constantine realized
that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom.
When negotiations failed to settle the dispute, the emperor
called the "Council of Nicea" in order to resolve
these, and other matters. The council met and voted on
whether Jesus (pbuh) was God or not. They effectively voted
Jesus into the position of God with an amendment condemning
all Christians who believed in the unity of God. There is
even extensive proof that most of those who signed this
decree did not actually believe in it or understand it but
thought it politically expedient to do so. Neo-Platonic
philosophy was the means by which this newly defined
doctrine of "Trinity" was formulated. One of the attendees,
Apuleius, wrote "I pass over in silence," explaining
that "those sublime and Platonic doctrines understood by
very few of the pious, and absolutely unknown to every one
of the profane." The vast majority of the others signed
under political pressure consoling themselves with such
words as "the soul is nothing worse for a little
ink." It is narrated that out of the 2030 attendees,
only 318 readily accepted this creed ("Al-Seerah
Al-Nabawiyya", Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi, p. 306). They then
approved the doctrine of homoousious meaning: of
"CO-EQUALITY, CO-ETERNITY, AND
CONSUBSTANTIALITY" of the second person of the
Trinity with the Father. The doctrine became known as the
Creed of Nicea.
Only on returning home did other attendees such as
Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chaledon and Theognis of
Nicaea summon the courage to express to Constantine in
writing how much they regretted having put their signatures
to the Nicene formula: "We committed an impious act, O
Prince," wrote Eusebius of Nicomedia, "by subscribing
to a blasphemy from fear of you."
However, the damage was already done and there would be
no undoing it now. It has been recorded that thirteen
conferences were held in the fourth century wherein Arius
and his beliefs were condemned. On the other hand, fifteen
supported him. While seventeen conferences issued decrees
similar to the beliefs of the Arians ("Al-Seerah
Al-Nabawiyya", Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi, p. 306).
Of the fruits of this council, Jesus (pbuh) was made
"Very God." Shortly thereafter, his mother Mary (pbuh) was
given the title of "Ever Virgin." It would not be long until
these concepts were later combined in 431AD to give her the
title "Theotokos" (God-bearing). This is how she became
known to us as "Mother of God."
The persecution of the Jews was just now getting into
full swing and with it a severe disdain and intolerance for
all Christians who did not convert to the new creeds. The
books of Arius and his sympathizers were ordered to be
burnt, and a reign of terror proclaimed for all those who
did not conform with the new, "official" Christian beliefs.
The following is one of the public declarations in this
regard:
"Understand now by this present statute, Novatians,
Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulinians, you who are called
Cataphrygians ... with what a tissue of lies and vanities,
with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines
are inextricably woven! We give you warning... Let none of
you presume, from this time forward, to meet in
congregations. To prevent this, we command that you be
deprived of all the houses in which you have been accustomed
to meet .. . and that these should be handed over
immediately to the catholic [i.e. official] church."
Following the Conference of Nicea, the matter of the
"Trinity" remained far from settled. Despite high hopes for
such on the part of Constantine, Arius and the new bishop of
Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the
matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism"
became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who
didn't hold to the newly defined doctrine of the Trinity.
Athanasius, the bishop who is popularly credited for having
formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote
on the matter, the more his thoughts recoiled upon
themselves and the less capable he was of clearly expressing
his thoughts regarding it. After the Council of Chalcedon in
451, debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak
out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy and
earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death.
Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and
slaughtering thousand because of this difference of
belief.
Some people might object that the words of all of these
eminent Christian scholars and highly respected references
are all in error. They claim that Jesus (pbuh) did indeed
teach the "Trinity" to the disciples, but that he did so in
secret to them alone. The disciples then went on and
secretly taught others, and then a couple of centuries later
it was made public knowledge. However, not only is this
theory based upon no evidence from the Bible, but it
actually contradicts the words of Jesus himself:
"Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I
ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the
Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing."
John 18:20
Worship of the Roman sun-god was very popular during the
third century CE among the pagan Gentiles as it had been for
centuries before that. As had become the popular custom,
Emperor Constantine (who presided over the council of Nicea)
was popularly considered to be the "manifestation" or
"incarnation" of the supreme Roman sun-god. For this reason,
in order to please Constantine, the Trinitarian church
compromised with him on the following points:
- They defined Christmas to be on the 25th of December,
the birthday of the Roman sun-god
- They moved the Christian Sabbath from Saturday to the
Roman Sun-day (Dies Soli), the holy day of the
sun-god Apollo (see chapter 3)
- They borrowed the emblem of the Roman sun God, the
cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity. Before
this, the official symbol of Christianity was that of a
fish, a symbol of the last supper (see chapter 3)
- They incorporated most of the rituals performed on
the sun-god's birthday into their own celebrations.
Muhammad Ata' Ur Rahim records that Constantine was
determined that the masses not think that he had forced
these bishops to sign against their will, so he resorted to
a miracle of God: Stacks of somewhere between 270 and 4,000
Gospels (one copy of all available Gospels at the time) were
placed underneath the conference table and the door to the
room was locked. The Bishops were told to pray earnestly all
night, and the next morning "miraculously" only the Gospels
acceptable to Athanasius (The Trinitarian Bishop of
Alexandria) were found stacked above the table. The rest
were burned. (Jesus Prophet of Islam, Muhammad 'Ata
ur-Rahim).
"The reign of Constantine marks the epoch of the
transformation of Christianity from a religion into a
political system; and though, in one sense, that system was
degraded into idolatry, in another it had risen into a
development of the old Greek mythology. The maxim holds good
in the social as well as in the mechanical world, that, when
two bodies strike, the form of both is changed. Paganism was
modified by Christianity; Christianity by Paganism. In the
Trinitarian controversy, which first broke out in Egypt -
Egypt, the land of the Trinities - the chief point in
discussion was to define the position of 'the Son.'"
History of the Conflict between Religion and Science,
Prof. John Draper, pp. 52-53
Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved
were cursed by the tongue of David and Jesus, son of Mary.
That was because they disobeyed and were ever transgressing.
They used not to forbid one another from the evil which they
committed. Vile indeed was what they used to do. You see
many of them taking the disbelievers as their protectors and
helpers. Evil indeed is that which their ownselves had sent
forward before them, for that (reason) Allah's Wrath fell
upon them and in torment they will abide. And had they
believed in Allah, and in the Prophet (Muhammad, pbuh) and
in what has been revealed to him, never would they have
taken them (the disbelievers) as protectors and helpers, but
many of them are the rebellious, the disobedient to
Allah.
The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):78-82
History was repeating itself. God had cautioned the Jews
in the past to never give concession in their religion to
the non-believers. They, however, disobeyed Him and felt
that a little compromise here and there might go a long way
towards facilitating "the greater good" and the continuation
of the faith. This trend was now repeating itself. A small
compromise here and a little concession there, it would not
be long until all remaining differences would be resolved.
But at what price?
This is indeed why God's last prophet, Muhammad (pbuh)
was once again cautioned to never give the slightest
consession in God's religion no matter how tempting the
pagan polythiests might make their offers.
Noon. (God swears) By the pen and what the (angels)
write (in the Records of men). You (O Muhammad pbuh) are
not, by the Grace of your Lord, a madman. And verily, for
you will be an endless reward. And verily, you are upon an
exalted character. Verily, you will see, and they will see,
Which of you is afflicted with madness. Verily, your Lord
knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He knows
best those who are guided. So obey not the deniers. They
wish that you should compromise (in religion out of
courtesy) with them, so they (too) would compromise with
you.
The noble Qur'an, Al-Qalam(68):1-9
Many more sweeping campaigns for the utter and complete
destruction of all "unacceptable" gospels to the Trinitarian
Church would be launched over the following centuries. One
example of such campaigns is the one launched during the
period of 379-395 AD during the reign of the Christian
Emperor Flavius Theodosius wherein all non-Roman Catholic
Christian writings were destroyed, or the campaign of
Christian Emperor Valentinian III (425-454AD) which again
commanded that all surviving non-Roman Catholic writings be
utterly destroyed. Such campaigns would become the norm in
the centuries to come.
Muhammad 'Ata ur-Rahim informs us in his book that Arius
was quickly condemned and then excommunicated. He was
reinstated, but was poisoned and killed by the Trinitarian
Bishop, Athanasius, in 336 CE. The Trinitarian Church called
his death "a miracle." Athanasius's treachery was discovered
by a council appointed by Costanatine and he was condemned
for Arius' murder. (Jesus Prophet of Islam, Muhammad 'Ata
ur-Rahim)
Constantine had made it an imperial law to accept the
Creed of Nicea. He was a pagan emperor and at the time
cared little if such a doctrine contradicted the teachings
of Jesus (pbuh) and the centuries of prophets of God before
him who had suffered severe hardship in order to preach a
monotheistic god to their people as can be seen in the Old
Testament to this day. He just wanted to pacify and unite
his "sheep." Ironically, Mr. Ata' Ur Rahim records that
Constantine embraced the beliefs of the Arians, was baptized
on his death bed in 337 by an Arian priest and died shortly
thereafter. In other words, he died a believer in the divine
Unity and teachings of the Arians and not the new
Trinitarian beliefs of the Athanasiun sect.
This "triune God" theory was not a novel concept but one
that was very much in vogue during the early Christian era.
There was:
- The Egyptian triad of Ramses II, Amon-Ra, and
Nut.
- The Egyptian triad of Horus, Osiris, and Isis.
- The Palmyra triad of moon god, Lord of the Heavens,
and sun god.
- The Babylonian triad of Ishtar, Sin, and
Shamash.
- The Mahayana Buddhist triune of transformation body,
enjoyment body, and truth body.
- The Hindu triad (Tri-murti) of Brahma, Vishnu, and
Siva.
...and so forth (please read chapter three for more).
However, it is popularly recognized that the "Trinity"
which had the most profound effect in defining the Christian
"Trinity" was the philosophy of the Greek philosopher,
Plato. His philosophy was based on a threefold distinction
of: The "First Cause", the "Reason" or Logos, and the
"Soul or Spirit of the Universe" (please see section
1.2.2.6). Edward Gibbon, considered one of the Western
world's greatest historians, and the author of "Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire," generally considered a
masterpiece of both history and literature writes in this
book:
"..His poetical imagination sometimes fixed and
animated these metaphysical abstractions; the three archical
or original principles with each other by the mysterious and
ineffable generation; and the Logos was particularly
considered under the more accessible character of the Son of
an eternal Father, and the Creator and Governor of the
world."
"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," II, Gibbon, p.
9.
Even the practice of promoting men to the status of gods
was common among the Gentiles at the time. Julius Caesar,
for instance, was acknowledged by the Ephesians to be "a
god made manifest and a common Savior of all human
life." In the end, both the Greeks and the Romans
acknowledged Caesar as a god. His statue was set up in a
temple in Rome with the inscription: "To the
unconquerable god." Another man who was elevated by the
Gentiles to the status of a god was Augustus Caesar. He was
acknowledged as a god and the "divine Savior of the
World." Emperor Constantine was also popularly believed
to be the human embodiment of the Roman Sun-god. And on and
on. Is it inconceivable that such people, after hearing of
Jesus' (pbuh) many miracles, of his raising of the dead, of
his healing of the blind, would consider elevating him to
the status of a god? These were simple people who had become
accustomed to countless man-gods, and Jesus (pbuh) had
become a legend among them even during his lifetime. No
wonder it did not take them long to make him a god after his
departure. In the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus himself indeed
foretold that mankind would make him a god and severely
condemned those who would dare to do so (see chapter 7). The
Bible itself bears witness to the fact that these gentiles
were all too willing to promote not just Jesus (pbuh), but
even the apostles of Jesus to the position of gods (see Acts
14:1-14).
Moreover, the concept of resurrection was also not a
novel one. The Greeks, like many other pagans, worshipped
the earth and associated it's fertility with the fertility
of woman. Many earth-mother goddesses arose out of this
belief, such as Aphrodite, Hera, and so on. With this
earth-mother goddess came the concept of a man-god who
personified the vegetation cycle and often the sun cycle. In
the case of Osirus, Baal, and Cronus, he also represented a
deceased king worshipped as divine. This man-god was always
assumed to have been born on the 21st or
25th of December so as to correspond to
the winter solstice (time of year when the sun is "born").
Forty days later, or about the time of Easter, he had to be
slain, laid in a tomb, and
resurrected after three days so that his
blood could be shed upon the earth in order to
maintain or restore the fertility of the earth and in order
to provide salvation for his worshipers. This
was a sign to the believers that they too would enjoy
eternal life. This man-god was usually called the "Soter"
(Savior). This "Soter" sometimes stood alone, but
usually was "The third, the savior" or
"The savior who is third." This man-god would be
defeated and usually torn into pieces and his enemy would
prevail. At this time, life would appear to have been sucked
out of the earth. There would then come a third being who
would bring back the dead god, or himself be the dead god
restored. He would defeat the enemy. This is dealt with in a
little more detail in chapter three.
For more and to learn the details of how the Pharisaic
adaptation of the cult of Mithra influenced Paul in his
reworking of the religion of Jesus, please read "Mohammed
A Prophesy Fulfilled," by H. Abdul Al-Dahir. You are
also encouraged to read "Islam and Christianity in the
modern world," by Dr. Muhammad Ansari, "Bible myths
and their parallels in other religions" by T. W. Doane,
and "The history of Christianity in the Light of Modern
Knowledge; a collective work," Blackie & son
limited, 1929.
Does any of this sound at all familiar? Is it just an
amazing coincidence that Paul's "New covenant" which he
preached to these pagan Gentiles ended up three centuries
later so closely resembling their established beliefs, or
did God intentionally mold His religion after the departure
of Jesus (pbuh) in order to closely resemble that of the
pagan Gentiles? Remember Paul's own words:
"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not
expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be
brought under the power of any."
1 Corinthians 6:12
and "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might
gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the
law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them
that are without law, as without law,
I am made all
things to all [men], that I might by all means save
some."
1 Corinthians 9:20-22.
But more on this later.
Even though the "Trinity" was formulated in the council
of Nicea, still, the concept of "Jesus was God," or the
"incarnation" (mentioned above by Mr. J.) was not formulated
until after the councils of Ephesus in 431, and the council
of Chalcedone in 451:
"...the Catholics trembled on the edge of a precipice,
where it was impossible to recede, dangerous to stand,
dreadful to fall; and the manifold inconveniences of their
creed were aggravated by the sublime character of their
theology. They hesitated to pronounce that God Himself, the
second person of an equal and consubstantial trinity, was
manifested in the flesh; that a being who pervades the
universe, had been confined in the womb of Mary; that His
eternal duration had been marked by the days, and months,
and years, of human existence; that the Almighty had been
scourged and crucified; that His impassable essence had felt
pain and anguish; that His omniscience was not exempt from
ignorance; and that the source of life and immortality
expired on Mount Cavary. These alarming consequences were
affirmed with the unblushing simplicity of Apollinans,
Bishop of Laodicia, and one of luminaries of the church."
"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," VI, Gibbon, p.
10.
Groliers encyclopedia under the heading of "Incarnation"
informs us that
"Incarnation denotes the embodiment of a deity in
human form. The idea occurs frequently in mythology. In
ancient times, certain people, especially kings and priests,
were often believed to be divinities. In Hinduism, Vishnu is
believed to have taken nine incarnations, or Avatars. For
Christians, the incarnation is a central dogma referring to
the belief that the eternal son of God, the second person of
the Trinity, became man in the person of Jesus Christ. The
incarnation was defined as a doctrine only after long
struggles by early church councils. The Council of Nicea
(325) defined the deity of Christ against Arianism; the
Council of Constantinople (381) defined the full humanity of
the incarnate Christ against Apollinarianism; the Council of
Ephesus (431) defined the unity of Christ's person against
Nestorianism; and the Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the
two natures of Christ, divine and human, against Eutyches."
Notice that it took the Church close to five hundred
years after the departure of Jesus to build up, justify, and
finally ratify the "incarnation." Also notice that the
apostles, their children, and their children's children for
tens of generations were too ignorant to recognize the
existence of an "incarnation." Jesus' (pbuh) very first and
very closest followers were too ignorant to recognize this
"truth." (for more on this topic, please read section
5.11)
It is not surprising then, that this doctrine of
incarnation is not mentioned in the New Testament. Once
again, the one verse which validates this claim, 1 Timothy
3:16, is again recognized as a later forgery which was
foisted upon Jesus (pbuh) fully six centuries after
his departure:
Regarding this verse, Sir Isaac Newton says:
"In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian
controversy, it never came into play
they that read
'God manifested in the flesh' think it one of the most
obvious and pertinent texts for the business."
Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, P.
157
"This strong expression might be justified by the
language of St. Paul (I TIM. 3.16), but we are deceived by
our modern Bibles. The word "o" (which) was altered to
"theos" (God) at Constantinople in the beginning of the 6th
century: the true reading, which is visible in the Latin and
Syriac version, still exists in the reasoning of the Greek,
as well as the Latin fathers; and this fraud, with that of
the three witnesses of St. John, is admirably detected by
Sir Isaac Newton."
"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," VI, Gibbon, p.
10.
Notice how, shortly after the "incarnation" was
officially approved, it was recognized that the Bible needed
to be "corrected" and "clarified" so that the reader could
see the "incarnation" clearly. All that was needed was to
change one word. Thus 1 Timothy 3:16 went from saying:
Before the inspired sixth century
"correction":
"And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: which was manifest in the flesh, justified in the
Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed
on in the world, received up into glory." to saying:
After the inspired sixth century "correction":
"And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the
Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed
on in the world, received up into glory"
Thankfully, more recent and faithful versions of the
Bible such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) are now
beginning to discard such innovations. Much is yet to be
desired, however, it is a start.
Even the holy "Easter" holiday is a pagan innovation
unknown to Jesus (pbuh) and his apostles. The name "Easter"
is derived from the pagan spring festival of the Anglo-Saxon
goddess of light and spring "Eostre" (or "Eastre") and to
whom the month of April was dedicated. Many folk customs
associated with Easter such as colored Easter eggs
(representing the sunlight of spring in her festival), the
Easter bunny (a symbol of fertility) are of pagan origin
also. Her festival was celebrated on the vernal equinox
(March 21st), and so too is the Christian "Easter." It was
celebrated to commemorate spring and the sun regaining it's
strength. Once again, the "Son" Jesus (pbuh), regained his
power and came to life at the same time (see chapter three
for more).
After the council of Nicea, 325C.E., the following proud
proclamation was made:
"We also send you good news concerning the unanimous
consent of all, in reference to the celebration of the most
solemn feast of Easter; for the difference has also been
made up by the assistance of your prayers; so that all the
brethren of the east, who formerly celebrated this festival
at the same time as the Jews, will in future conform to the
Romans and to us and to all who have of old observed our
manner of celebrating Easter."
For much, much more on the topic of the pagan influence
on today's "Christianity," please read the books "Islam and
Christianity in the modern world," by Dr. Muhammad Ansari,
and "Bible myths and their parallels in other religions" by
T. W. Doane.
As mentioned above, the very first Christians were all
devout Jews. These first followers of Jesus (including the
apostles themselves) followed the same religion which Moses
(pbuh) and his followers had followed for centuries before
them. They knew of no "new covenant" or annulments of the
commandments of Moses (pbuh). They had been taught by Jesus
(pbuh) that his religion was an affirmation of the religion
of the Jews and a continuation of it.
"The first fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem" writes
Gibbon, "were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation
over which they presided united the Law of Moses with the
Doctrine of Christ."
"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," II, Gibbon, p.
119.
As we have seen in the previous sections, this fact is
indeed confirmed in the Bible where we are told that after
the departure of Jesus, his faithful followers continued to
keep up their daily attendance at the Temple of the Jews
(the most holy of Jewish synagogues) in observance of the
religion of Moses.
"And they, continuing daily with one accord in the
temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat
their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,"
Acts 2:46
Also remember the words of Professor Robert Alley:
"...The (Biblical) passages where Jesus talks about
the Son of God are later additions... what the church said
about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have
been consistent with his entire lifestyle as we can
reconstruct. For the first three decades after Jesus' death
Christianity continued as a sect within Judaism. The first
three decades of the existence of the church were within the
synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they (the
followers of Jesus) had boldly proclaimed the deity of
Jesus"
This would also have been beyond belief if they had
preached the total cancellation and destruction of the law
of Moses, as Paul did.
Toland observes:
"We know already to what degree imposture and
credulity went hand in hand in the primitive times of the
Christian Church, the last being as ready to receive as the
first was to forge books, this evil grew afterwards not only
greater when the Monks were the sole transcribers and the
sole keepers of all books good or bad, but in process of
time it became almost absolutely impossible to distinguish
history from fable, or truth from error as to the beginning
and original monuments of Christianity. How immediate
successors of the Apostles could so grossly confound the
genuine teaching of their masters with such as were falsely
attributed to them? Or since they were in the dark about
these matters so early how came such as followed them by a
better light? And observing that such Apocryphal books
were often put upon the same footing with the canonical
books by the Fathers, and the first cited as Divine
Scriptures no less than the last, or sometimes, when such as
we reckon divine were disallowed by them. I propose these
two other questions: Why all the books cited genuine by
Clement of Alexander. Origen. Tertullian and the rest of
such writers should not be accounted equally authentic? And
what stress should he laid on the testimony of those Fathers
who not only contradict one another but are also often
inconsistent with themselves in their relations of the very
same facts?"(emphasis added).
The Nazarenes, John Toland, pp. 73 (From: Jesus Prophet
of Islam).
Jesus (pbuh) himself did indeed foretell of this most
tragic situation:
"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the
time comes, that whosoever kills you will think that he does
God service And these things will they do unto you, because
they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things
have I told you, that when the time shall come, you may
remember that I told you of them. And these things I said
not unto you at the beginning, because I was with
you.."
John 16:2-4
Well then, why did the masses in the centuries after this
not revolt and renew the original teaching of Jesus (pbuh)?
Because the Bible was made the property of the privileged
few. No one was allowed to read it, nor to translate it into
other languages. When these privileged few came into power
in what would later be called by the West "The Dark Ages,"
(our more politically correct generation now prefers to
refer to it as "The Middle Ages") the Bible was hoarded by
these men and they were claimed to be the only ones who
could understand it's teachings. The first authoritative
English translation of the Bible was completed by Mr.
William Tyndale, popularly considered a master of both the
Hebrew and Greek languages. The King James Bible was based
upon his translation. He was forced into exile in 1524 and
later condemned and burned to death as a heretic in 1536 for
the vile and blasphemous deed of translating the Bible into
English.
With the rule of the church came the great Inquisitions.
The Inquisitions were a medieval church court instituted to
seek out and prosecute heretics. Notoriously harsh in its
procedures, the Inquisition was defended during the rule of
the church by appeal to biblical practices and to the church
father Saint Augustine himself (354-430 AD), the great
luminary of the church, who had interpreted Luke 14:23 as
endorsing the use of force against heretics in order
to convert them. Mr. Tom Harpur observes
"The horrors of the Crusades and the notorious
Inquisitions are all but a small part of this tragic tale."
Okay, but surely of those who had access to the Bible
there must have been some who would have revealed these
matters. As it happens, there were. Sadly, they were all put
to death or tortured until they recanted their views. Their
books were also burned. For instance, Isaac de la Peyere was
one of many scholars to notice many serious discrepancies in
the Bible and to write about them openly. His book was
banned and burned. He was arrested and informed that in
order to be released he would have to recant his views to
the Pope. He did. There are countless such examples for
those who would simply research their history books.
The Trinitarian church's campaign of death and torture
for all Christians refusing to compromise their beliefs
continued for many centuries after the creation of the
Trinity in 325 CE. Many brilliant scholars and leaders of
the Unitarian Christians were condemned, tortured, and even
burned alive in a very slow and drawn-out manner. Only some
of these men are: Origen (185-254 CE), Lucian (died 312 CE),
Arius (250-336 CE), Michael Servetus (1511-1553 CE), Francis
David (1510-1579 CE), Lelio Francesco Sozini (1525-1562 CE),
Fausto Paolo Sozini (1539-1604 CE), John Biddle (1615-1662
CE)... and on and on.
This wholesale condemnation became so bad that it was not
sufficient to condemn individuals any more, but rather,
whole nations were condemned and killed. An example is the
Holy decree of 15th of February 1568 which condemned all
of the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics.
Three million men women and children where sentenced to the
scaffold in three lines by the benevolent Trinitarian
church. Why does no one cry "Holocaust" for these poor
people?
"Upon the 15th of February 1568, a sentence of the
Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands
to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few
persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of
King Philip II of Spain, dated ten days later, confirmed
this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried
into instant execution. . . Three millions of people, men,
women and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three
lines. Under the new decree, the executions certainly did
not slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest positions
were daily and hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in a
single letter to Philip II, coolly estimates the number of
executions which were to take place immediately after the
expiration of Holy Week at 'eight hundred heads.'"
"Rise of the Dutch Republic" John Lothrop Motly
Toland asks in his book The Nazarenes:
"Since the Nazarenes and Ebonites (Unitarian
Christians) are by all the Church historians unanimously
acknowledged to have been the first Christians, or those who
believe in Christ among the Jews with which, his own people,
he lived and died, they having been the witness of his
actions, and of whom were all the apostles, considering
this, I say how it is possible for them to be the first of
all others (for they were made to be the first heretics),
who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and
designs of Jesus? And how came the Gentiles who believed on
him after his death by the preaching of persons that never
knew him to have truer notions of these things, or whence
they could have their information but from the believing
Jews?" (emphasis added).
(From: Jesus a Prophet of Islam)
Only today when true religious freedom, scientific
knowledge, and archeological discoveries have come together
in the study of the Bible and other ancient documents have
Christians started to see the truth. An example of this can
be found in the British newspaper the "Daily News" 25/6/84
under the heading "Shock survey of Anglican Bishops"
We read that a British television poll of 31 of 39 Anglican
Bishops found 19 to believe that it is not necessary for
Christians to believe that Jesus (pbuh) is God, but only
"His supreme agent." Muslims too, strangely enough, have
been told this over 1400 years ago by God Almighty in the
noble Qur'an. The Qur'an tells us that Jesus was not God nor
the Son of God (in the orthodox sense), but only a very
pious and elect servant and messenger of God. This is even
testified to by Jesus (pbuh) himself in John 17:3 "And
this is life eternal, that they might know YOU the
ONLY true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have
SENT."
Next Page
|