I was actually pushed into this topic by a Christian brother. At this stage, when I have come to know so many facts about “Trinity”, it would be really selfish not to thank him, by whose push I explored this topic. It was indeed an interesting topic to search. In the following are some important facts along with proves. The purpose of these articles is not to hurt the Christians, but, to bring forward the facts.

Allah says in the Holy Qur’an in Surah Madiah 5: 73 (translation yusuf ali): “They Do Blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: For There is No God except One God”

Let us first of all have a glance in the time of yore to know about Trinity, and how it crawled into Christianity.

Trinity
The concept of “Trinity” was in fact a very old worshipping practice; it started long time before the time of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –. It was in Babylon that the idea of “Trinity” first appeared. This Trinity consisted of Baal, the Sun-god as father, Semiramis, the Queen mother and Nimrod, the divine child. A day was set aside to rejoice over and to celebrate the re-birth of the young god. From Babylon this worship spread to other places, but the names varied in different countries.

In Western Asia, the god Attis was worshipped as the child of miracle, born to a virgin mother Nana. In Egypt, we have again the same belief with a change of names. There is Isis and Osiris were worshipped as “Mother and Child”. In Rome, the “Mother and Child” deities were known as Fortuna and Jupiterpuer; in Greece, Demeter and Dionysus; and in other countries such as India, Tibet and China. Therefore, one can easily understand how the concept of `Trinity’ crept into the doctrines of Christianity as it was adapted to suit the Gentiles.

This polytheistic (believing in more than one god) Trinitarianism was intertwined with Greek religion and philosophy and slowly worked its way into Christian thought and creeds some 300 years after Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – The idea of “God the Son” is Babylonian paganism and mythology that was grafted into Christianity. Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third century Church in Carthage, was the first to use 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.

Three centuries after Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –, the corrupt emperor Constantine forced the minority opinion of the trinity upon the council of Nicea. The Christian church went downward from there; in fact some of the creeds and councils actually contradict each other. The council of Nicea 325 said that “Jesus Christ is God,” the council of Constantinople 381 said that “the Holy Spirit is God,” the council of Ephesus 431 said that “human beings are totally depraved,” the council of Chalcedon 451 said that “Jesus Christ is both man and God.”
If you follow the logic here then first you have Jesus Christ – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – as God, then you have man totally depraved, and then you have Jesus Christ – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – as man and God.
If Jesus Christ – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is both man and God; does this mean that God is also totally depraved?

Doctrine of Trinity

According to the first two Ecumenical Councils of Church, God is three gods merged into one God. This one God is called the Trinity. This name of God does not exist anywhere in the New Testament! However, to say that God is three, in Christianity, is a blasphemy of the highest order. All three parts of the Trinity are “coequal”, “co-eternal” and “of the same substance.” In other words, while the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost sustain distinct relationships to one another, they share the same divine nature.

The Trinitarian doctrine of the Gnostic, which was adopted by the Church in 325 C.E. states the following [Joseph Campbell, "The Masks of God: Accidental Mythology", Penguin Books, New York, 1976, p.389]:

1. We believe in one God, the Father all-Sovereign, maker of all things, both visible and invisible;
2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, an only begotten;
3. That is, from the essence of the Father,
4. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God – begotten, not made – being of one essence with the Father;
5. By whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth;
6. Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, cometh to judge the quick and the dead;
7. And in the Holy Spirit.
8. But those who say that `there was once when he was not,’ and `before he was begotten he was not,’ and `he was made of things that were not,’ or maintain that the Son of God is of a different essence, or created or subject to moral change or alteration – these doth the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematize.

The Christians have their three Gods responsible for the following duties:
(a) The Father creates and sustains the world.
(b) The son ensures salvation and atones for the sins of man.
(c) The Holy Ghost prepares the human mind for faith and maintains the believer in the state of faith.

Rational Examination

Let us first analyze the 2nd point of the Trinitarian Doctrine of the Gnostic, which states:

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, an only begotten;”

Christian brothers and sisters, you should not accept the word “son” literally, because the God has ‘Sons by the Tons’ in the Bible. Please, have the pleasure of investigating for yourself

“And thou [Moses] shalt say unto Pharaoh: ‘Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.”‘ Exodus 4:22 (Emphasis mine)

“He [Solomon] shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father and he shall be My son.” II Samuel 7:13-14 (Emphasis mine)

“I am a father to Israel and Ephraim is my firstborn.” Jeremiah 31:9 (Emphasis mine)

“Ye are the children of the Lord your God.” Deuteronomy 14:1 (Emphasis mine)

“For whom he did fore know, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn of many brethren.” Romans 8:29 (Emphasis mine)

How many sons? So you see my Christian brothers and sisters, Moses – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is the son of God, Solomon – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is the son of God, Ephraim – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is the son of God, common people are children of God, David – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is the son of God. So many sons, yet ONE son claimed by the Christendom.

The reality is that, the phrase “Son of God” signifies love and affection and nearness to God, and that it is not to be applied to Jesus alone. You will see sons and daughters of God: II Corinthians 6:18: “And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
Now, to the point of being “BEGOTTEN”

About RSV

First published, as Sir Winston says, in 1611, and then revised in 1881 (RV), and then re-revised and brought up to date as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and again re-re-revised in 1971 (still RSV for short). Let us see what opinion Christendom has of this most revised Bible, the RSV:-

1. “THE FINEST VERSION WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN THE PRESENT CENTURY.” — (Church of England Newspaper) (Emphasis mine)
2. “A COMPLETELY FRESH TRANSLATION BY SCHOLARS OF THE HIGHEST EMINENCE.” — (Times literary Supplement) (Emphasis mine)
3. “THE WELL-LOVED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AUTHORISED VERSION COMBINED WITH A NEW ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION.” — (Life and Work) (Emphasis mine)
4. “THE MOST ACCURATE AND CLOSE RENDERING OF THE ORIGINAL” — (The Times) (Emphasis mine)

The publishers (Collins) themselves, in their notes on the Bible at the end of their production, say on page 10: “THIS BIBLE (RSV), IS THE PRODUCT OF THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, ASSISTED BY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTING FIFTY CO-OPERATING DENOMINATIONS.”

So, you see that RSV is ‘Finest Version’, by the ‘32 Highest Eminent Scholars’ and above all ‘Most Accurate and Close Rendering to the ORIGINAL’.
And you know, that this RSV, which is claimed to be in accordance to the ‘ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES’ removed the word, “Begotten” in their RSV.

Now, this verse in RSV reads like:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,” John 3:16

Secondly, long before Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – was born, God said to David (Psalms 2:7):

“I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me [David]: ‘Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.”‘ Psalms 2:7 (Emphasis mine)

Islamic Point of View

We, as Muslims take strong exception for attributing such a quality to that Almighty One. Begetting is an animal act; it belongs to lower class of animal group. The Almighty God does not take his seed and put it into anyone’s daughter, sister mother or a wife. How can you attribute such a filthy quality to The Almighty God?

The Holy Qur’ân speaks of the same issue

“He Begetteth not, Nor is He Begotten.” Holy Qur’ân 112:3

As far as the 3rd point of the Trinitarian Doctrine of the Gnostic is concerned, that states:

“(2) And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, an only begotten; (3) That is, from the essence of the Father,”

You can see that the 3rd point is the continued link to the 2nd point. The 3rd point states that Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is of the same essence as that of the Father.

This point is further clarified in the 4th point of the same Trinitarian Doctrine of the Gnostic:

“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God – begotten, not made – being of one essence with the Father;”

If Jesus is from God, then both of them have the same “Fundamental Nature” as mentioned in the 3rd point and explained in the 4th point, then the problem with this point is that:

1. It means, that when Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – died on the cross (Romans 5:6, John 19:33) The Father will also have this UNCHANGED “Fundamental Nature” of DYING!?
2. According to John 4:24 “God is Spirit” and in John 5:37:
“Ye have neither heard his voice at anytime, nor seen his shape.”

Now, if God is Spirit according to John 4:24, and Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is of the same substance as God according to Athanasius, then the substance of both God and Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is Spirit. It follows that humans should not be able to see Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –, because he is also spirit!

With regards to the 6th point of the Trinitarian Doctrine of the Gnostic:

“Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, cometh to judge the quick and the dead;”

It has some of the following answer demanding questions:

1. God is Just, and justice requires that nobody should be punished for the sins of others, nor should some people be saved by punishing other people. Doesn’t the claim that God sacrificed Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – to save us contradict the definition of justice?
2. Christians say that “GOD SACRIFICED His only son to save us”. The question is “to whom did God SACRIFICE Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – when God owns the whole universe?”
3. A real sacrifice is when you can’t get back what you have offered, so what would be the big deal about such a sacrifice if God could recover the same offering? (Hebrews 9:28 “… he (Jesus) will appear a second time”)
4. If all the Christians are saved through Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – and are going to Heaven no matter what they do, then the teachings of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – are irrelevant and the definition of good and bad are also rendered irrelevant. If this is not so, then do Christians who believe in Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – yet do not follow his teachings nor repent go to Hell?
5. Why does the Bible say that Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – wanted to die on the cross, when, on the cross, he was shouting “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” according to Matthew 27:45 and Mark 15:33?
6. How can Christians take deeds as irrelevant after becoming one when Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – says in Matthew 12:36;
“But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment. For by the words thou shalt be justified, and by the words thou shalt be condemned”?
Final Questions

Regarding “Trinity”, following are some logic demanding questions:

1. When Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – died on the cross. Did he die as a “MAN” or did he die as a “GOD”?
2. To be “GOD” means freedom from finite forms and from helplessness, and to be “MAN” means the absence of divinity. Can you have the FINITE and INFINITE at the same time?
3. Is God three-in-one and one in three simultaneously or one at a time?
4. If God is one and three simultaneously, then none of the three could be the complete God. Granting that such was the case, then when Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – was on earth, he wasn’t a complete God, nor was the “father in Heaven” a whole God. Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – always said about His God and our God in heaven, his Lord and our Lord? Does that also mean that there was no complete God then, between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?
5. If God is one and three at a time, then who was the God in heaven when Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – was on earth? Wouldn’t this contradict his many references to a God in Heaven that sent him?
6. If God is three and one at the same time, who was the God in Heaven within three days between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?
7. Christians say that: “The Father (F) is God, the Son (S) is God, and the Holy Ghost (H) is God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not the Father”. In simple arithmetic and terms therefore, if F = G, S = G, and H = G, then it follows that F = S = H, while the second part of the statement suggests that F ¹ S ¹ H (meaning, “not equal”). Isn’t that a contradiction to the Christian dogma of Trinity in itself?

Unitarian Christians

Quite soon after Jesus’ – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – disappearance from earth, there was a definite and widening divergence between the followers of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – and the Pauline Church, which was later to become known as the Roman Catholic Church. Differences between the two were not only evident in life-style and belief, but were also clearly delineated geographically. As the Pauline Church grew more established, it became increasingly hostile to the followers of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –. It aligned itself more and more with the rulers of the Roman Empire, and the persecution which to begin with had been directed at all who called themselves Christians, now began to fall mainly on those who affirmed the Divine Unity. Attempts began to be made to change their beliefs and forcefully to remove those who refused to do so, together with the books they used.

Most of the early martyrs were Unitarians. The more the doctrine of Trinity became accepted, the more its adherents opposed those who affirmed the Divine Unity. By the time the Emperor Julian came to power, this infighting had reached such a level that he said:
“No wild beasts are so hostile to man as Christian sects in general are to one another.”

Naturally, those who deviated from the teaching of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – were prepared to change the Scriptures too, and even introduce false writings in order to support their opinions. Toland, in his book The Nazarenes, records these words of Iranius, who was one of the early Unitarian martyrs:

“In order to amaze the simple and such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of Truth, they obtrude upon them an inexpressible multitude of apocryphal and spurious scriptures of their own devising.” Toland, J., “The Nazarenes”, 1718.

Toland continues: “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 as genuine by Clement of Alexander, Origen, Tertullian and the rest of such writers should not be accounted equally authentic? And what stress should be 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?” Toland, J., “The Nazarenes”, 1718.
Toland goes on to say that when these questions are asked of the “wooden priests and divinilings,” instead of meeting the arguments, they begin to call those who raise the questions “heretics or concealed atheists.” He continues:

“This conduct will make them suspect all to be a cheat and imposture, because men will naturally cry out when they are touched in a tender part… No man will be angry at a question who is able to answer it.” Toland, J., “The Nazarenes”, 1718.

Finally, Toland asks: “Since the Nazarenes or Ebionites are by all the Church historians unanimously acknowledged to have been the first Christians, or those who believed 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 was 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?”
[Source: Toland, J., "The Nazarenes", 1718, pp.73-76]

Mr. Paul

“Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught…. For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message…. That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world…. The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ, which the disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the Master, tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness.”
Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore: “Christ or Paul?” (Emphasis mine)

Paul deviated further and further from the teachings Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – had embodied, and laid more and more emphasis on the figure of Christ whom he claimed had appeared to him in visions. His defense against those who accused him of changing the guidance Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – had brought was that what he preached had its origin in a direct revelation he had received from Christ. This gave Paul Divine Authority. It was by virtue of this “authority” he claimed, that the blessings of the Gospel were not limited to the Jews, but to all who believed. Furthermore, he asserted that the requirements of the Law of Moses were not only unnecessary, but also contrary to what had been revealed to him from God. In fact, he said, they were a curse. Thus, Paul incurred not only the wrath of the followers of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –, but also that of the Jews, since he was contradicting both of their prophets.

Paul justified his new doctrine with the use of this analogy:

“Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then; if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but, if her husband be dead, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” Romans 7:1-4 (Emphasis mine)

According to Paul’s reasoning, the law which had bound Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – and his followers was no longer necessary, since Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – had died. Now they were no longer “married” to Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –, but to “the one”, who had brought another law. It was, therefore, necessary to follow “the one” and not Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –. Thus, anyone who held to Jesus’ – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – teaching had gone astray.

Paul’s reasoning had two major consequences. It not only resulted in further changes being made to what Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – had taught, but also prepared the way for completely changing people’s ideas to who Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – was. He was being transformed from a man to a conception in people’s minds. This emphasis from Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – as a man to the new image, which was divine, enabled the intellectuals in Greece and Rome to assimilate into their own philosophy what Paul and those who followed him were preaching. Their view of existence was a tripartite one, and, with the Pauline Church’s talk of “God the Father” and the “Son of God”, it only needed the inclusion of the “Holy Ghost” to have a Trinity which matched theirs.

It appears that Paul rationalized his actions by holding that there was no link between the period in which Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – had lived and the period in which he himself now lived. Times had changed and the conditions which now prevailed were such that the teaching of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – was out of date and could no longer be applied. It had therefore become necessary to find a new basis for ethics. Paul took stock of the conditions which existed then taught what they seemed to require him to believe:

“All things are lawful unto me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” 1 Corinthians 7:12

Paul not only rejected both Moses and Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon them –, but asserted that he was a law unto himself. Many people, obviously, could not accept this. Paul responded by saying: “For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto His Glory; why yet I am also judged a sinner?” Romans 3:7-8

It would seem from this statement that, although he knew he was lying, Paul felt that the end justified the means, but it is not understood how truth would abound through a lie. According to this reasoning, if the man Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – was equated with God, what objections could a follower of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – have?

‘In reality’ said Paul, ‘the law produces wrath, but where there is now law, neither is there any transgression.’ Romans 4:15

The abrogation of the Law of Moses – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – by Paul has been a gradual process. In the beginning he started with a few innovations. Later the Gentile element kept on tampering with the books and introducing new ideas. Innovations introduced by Paul were simply to entice the Gentiles. He started with canceling the law of circumcision. But one wrong step let the next inequality, and ultimately it ended into a faith which more resembled pagan beliefs than the revealed teachings of Moses or Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon them.

There is, therefore, some justification for Heinz Zahrant calling Paul a “corruptor of the Gospel of Jesus” and Werde describing him as “the second founder of Christianity.” Werde says that, due to Paul: “… the discontinuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ of the Church became so great that any unit between them is scarcely recognizable.”

Schonfield also wrote: “The Pauline heresy became the foundation of Christian orthodoxy and the legitimate Church was disowned as heretical.” (Emphasis mine)

History

Constantine

The involvement of the Roman Emperors with the Christian Church started with Emperor Constantine. It all started in Rome when he became jealous of his eldest son and heir, Crispus, because of his popularity among the people. To make sure of his position as Emperor, Constantine had him murdered. It was known that the step-mother of Crispus had wanted her own son to succeed Constantine. She, therefore, had the motive for killing Crispus. Constantine accordingly put the blame of his crime on her, and killed her by immersing her in a bath full of boiling water. He hoped to mitigate one crime by the other.

The result, however, was just the opposite of what he had planned. The supporters of the dead queen joined forces with the followers of his dead son, and both sought revenge. In desperation he turned to the priests of the Roman temple of Jupiter for help, but they told him there was no sacrifice or prayer which could absolve him from the two murders. It became so uncomfortable to be in Rome that Constantine decided to go to Byzantium.

On his arrival there, he renamed the city after himself, and called it Constantinople. Here he met with unexpected success from the Pauline Church. They said that if he did penance in their Church his sins would be forgiven. Constantine made full use of this facility for his hands were stained with the blood from two murders. Furthermore, he saw the possibilities of using the Church to his own ends provided that he could win its loyalty to him.

Without hesitation, Constantine gave the Church his full support. With this unexpected backing, the Church became a strong force almost overnight.

Constantine made full use of her. The country around the Mediterranean was dotted about with Christian churches and the Emperor utilized them to great advantage in the wars he was fighting. Many of the priests carried out very useful intelligence work for him, and their help was an important factor in his effort to unite Europe and the Middle East under him.

Constantine also made full use of the Church in maintaining discipline in his army. The authority of the bishops was used to ratify the obligation of the military oath. Deserters faced the added threat of excommunication. Partly as a token of his gratitude and partly in order to diminish the power of the Roman priests in the temple of Jupiter who had refused to support him, Constantine encouraged the Christians to open a church in Rome. He also encouraged his subjects to become Christians, promising them not poverty, but wealth:

“The salvation of the common people was purchased at an easy rate, if it be true, that, in one year, 12000 men were baptized at Rome, besides a proportionable number of women and children; and that a white garment, with twenty pieces of gold, had been promised by the Emperor to every convert…” Gibbon, E., “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, 1823, p.458

However, Constantine did not become a Christian himself, for many of his subjects still believed in Jupiter and the other gods in the Pantheon of Rome. In order to ally any suspicions they might have, he made a number of decisions which seemed to prove that he too worshipped the Roman gods. He liberally restored and enriched the temples of the Roman gods. The coins and medals of the Empire were impressed with the figures and attributes of Jupiter and Apollo, of Mars and Hercules.

“…the devotion of Constantine was more peculiarly directed to the genius of the Sun, the Apollo of Greek and Roman mythology; and he was pleased to be represented with the symbols of the god of light and poetry… The sun was universally celebrated as the invincible guide and protector of Constantine.” Gibbon, E., “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, 1823, p.448

The Emperor was considered to be the manifestation of the Sun-god on earth.

Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – had celebrated the Sabbath on Saturday. To please the Emperor, however, the Pauline Church accepted the following changes:

-  Declared the Roman Sun-day to be the Christian Sabbath;
-  Adopted the traditional birthday of the Sun-god, the twenty-fifth of December, as the birthday of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –;
-  Borrowed the emblem of the Sun-god, the cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity;
-  And, decided to incorporate all the ceremonies which were performed at the Sun-god’s birthday celebrations into their own ceremonies.

Unity of Church

Constantine, who at this stage neither understood nor believed in Christianity, saw the political advantage of having a united Church which would obey him, and whose center would be based in Rome and not in Jerusalem. When the members of the Apostolic Church refused to obey these wishes, he tried to compel them by force. This pressure from without, however, did not produce the desired result. A number of the Apostolic Christian communities refused to accept the overlordship of the Bishop of Rome. They recognized this move as a political ploy by a foreign ruler, and as something entirely apart from the teaching of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him.

The first revolt came from among the Berber communities of North Africa. It was led not by Arius but by a man name Donatus. The Berber always believed in the Divine Unity; they could believe in Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – as a Prophet, but never as God. In 313 CE Donatus was chosen from among the people as their bishop. For forty years he remained the leader of their Church which continued to flourish in opposition to the Bishop of Rome. According to Jerome, “Donatism” became the religion of nearly all North Africa within a generation, and neither force nor argument could change it.
The Bishop of Rome tried to install one of his own bishops in Carthage to replace Donatus. His name was Caecelian. This caused further unrest; the populace of Carthage gathered around the office of the Roman pro-consul and denounced Caecelian. As it was, the North African Christians had little respect for the Roman pro-consul and the other imperial officials. For generations now the Christians had suffered persecution at their hands, and regarded them as emissaries of Satan. Formerly, they had been persecuted because they were Christians. Now, they were to be persecuted because they were not the right kind of Christians. Up until this point, Donatus had been their bishop. He now became their popular leader.

The Church of Rome, which had by now adopted the epithet “Catholic” to indicate the universality of its approach in the worship of God, appealed to the Donatists to unite. The appeal had no effect, and Donatus refused to hand over his churches to Caecelian. The differences in beliefs were too wide to bridge. Finally, the Roman army came into action. There were mass slaughters of people. Dead bodies were thrown into wells, and bishops were murdered in their churches. These events widened the rift between the Donatists and the Catholic Church even further. Since the Catholic Church was working in alliance with the pagan magistrates and their soldiers, the Catholics were called schismatics and their churches were identified as places of “hated idolatry”.
Constantine, who was a good administrator, realized the futility of trying to restore religious harmony and unity by force. Deciding that discretion as the better part of valor, he left the people in North Africa to themselves.

Arius

The leader of the Apostolic Church, which continued to affirm belief in One Reality, was at this time a presbyter known to history as Arius. He followed the teaching of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – implicitly, and refused to accept the innovation introduced by Paul.
“Follow Jesus as he preached” was the motto of Arius. His importance can be gauged by the fact, that, his name had become a synonym of Unitarianism even today.

Although the early life of Arius is hidden in mystery, it is recorded that in 318 CE, he was in charge of the Church of Baucalis in Alexandria. Arius was no “bustling schemer” as his enemies would have people believe, and even they were forced to admit that he was a sincere and blameless presbyter. He remained aloof from the alliance which the organized Church had made with the Emperor Constantine.

At his time, Trinity was accepted by many of those who called themselves Christians, but no one was sure what it actually meant. After more than two centuries of discussion, no one had been able to state the doctrine in terms which were free from equivocation. Arius stood up and challenged anyone to define it. Arius, by the use of reason, and relying on the authority of the Scriptures, proved the doctrine to be false.

Arius began his refutation to the doctrine of Trinity using the following argument: if Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – was in reality the “son of God”, then it followed that the father must have existed before the son. Therefore, there must have been a time when the son did not exist. Therefore, it followed that the son was a creature composed of an essence or being which had not always existed. Since God is in essence Eternal and Ever-existent, Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – could not be of the same essence of God. Arius backed his arguments with numerous verses from the Bible which nowhere teaches the doctrine of Trinity. If Jesus said:”My father is greater than I,” John 14:28
Then to believe that God and Jesus were equal, argued Arius, was to deny the truth of the Bible.

The arguments of Arius were irrefutable, but Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, by virtue of his position, excommunicated him. However, Arius had such a large following that he could not be ignored by the Pauline Church. The controversy which had been simmering for nearly three hundred years came to its boiling point. The Pauline Church was troubled and annoyed that so many of the Eastern bishops supported Arius, whose greatest ally was Eusebius of Nicomedia, for they were friends and both of them had been students of Lucian.

325 CE

As far as Constantine was concerned, things were going from bad to worse. He was plagued with internal political problems, and the conflict between the Pauline Church and the Apostolic Church was not helping his effort to unify the different parts of the Empire. His experience in dealing with the North Africans seemed to have taught him a lesson: he should not take sides openly. So he decided to call a meeting of Christian bishops in order to settle the matter once and for all. The gathering of the bishops in Nicaea in 325 CE under Constantine is known today as the Council of Nicaea.

Apart from the leaders of the two contending parties, the majority of those who were invited to the Council were not on the whole very knowledgeable. No one from the Church of Donatus was asked to attend, although Caecelian, Donatus’s chief opponent, was invited. Alexander, who was growing old, and who had been routed so many times before by Arius, decided to send Athanasius a young and fiery supporter of Trinity to Nicaea as his representative instead of going there himself.

Thus, the Council was composed largely of bishops who held their faith earnestly and sincerely, but without much intellectual knowledge of the grounds on which they maintained it. These men were suddenly brought face to face with the most agile and most learned exponents of Greek philosophy of the age. Their way of expression was such that these bishops could not grasp the significance of what was being said. Incapable of giving rational explanations of their knowledge or entering into arguments with their opponents, they were to either stick to their beliefs in silence or to agree to whatever the Emperor decided.

The Council dragged on for three months without reaching a definition to Christianity that satisfies the two sides. As the debate continued, it became evident to both parties that no clear-cut decision would be reached on the floor of the Council. However, they still both desired the support of the Emperor since, for the Pauline Church, it would mean an increase in power, and for the North African Church an end to persecution. Princess Constantina, the sister of the Emperor, had advised Eusebius of Nicomedia that the Emperor strongly desired a united Church, since a divided one endangered his Empire. However, if no agreement was reached within the Church, he might lose patience and withdraw his support for Christianity altogether. Should he take this course of action, the situation of the Christians would be even worse than before, and the teaching itself would be endangered even further.

Counseled by their friend Eusebius, Arius and his followers adopted a passive role, but disassociated themselves from all changes to the teachings of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – the Council agreed to. Under these circumstances, the dogma of Trinity was finally accepted as a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. The Nicene Creed was then drawn up an attested to in writing by those present with the full support of the Emperor Constantine. It enshrined the view of the Trinitarians and had the following anathema appended as a direct rejection of Arius’s teaching:

But those who say that `there was once when he was not,’ and `before he was begotten he was not,’ and `he was made of things that were not,’ or maintain that the Son of God is of a different essence, or created or subject to moral change or alteration – these doth the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematize. Campbell, J., “The Masks of God: Accidental Mythology”, Penguin Books, New York, 1976, p.389

Arius and some of his followers did not sign the creed. Of those who signed it, some believed in it, some did not know what they were putting their names to, and the majority of delegates in the Council, did not agree with the doctrine of Trinity, but, nevertheless, signed with mental reservation, to please the Emperor.

Line of Attack

Constantine knew that a creed which was based not on conviction but on votes could not be taken seriously. One could believe in God, but could not elect Him by the democratic method. He knew how and why the bishops had signed the creed. He was determined not create the impression that he had forced the bishops to sign against their convictions. So it was decided to take resort to a miracle of God to affirm and support the decision of the Council.

The pile of the Gospels-the written record of Jesus’ – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – teaching still lay in the middle of the hall where they had been placed at the beginning of the Council. According to one source, there were at least 270 versions of the Gospel at that time, while other states: there were as many as 4000 different Gospels. Even if one accepts the most conservative record, the number must have been quite overwhelming. The drawing up of a creed which contained ideas not to be found in the Gospels and, in some cases, in direct contradiction of what was in the Gospels, must have made matters more confusing for some people. The continued existence of the Gospels must have been very inconvenient.

It was decided that all the different Gospels should be placed under a table in the Council Hall. Everyone then left the room and the door was locked. The bishops were asked to pray for the whole night that the correct version of the Gospel might come onto the top of the table.

In the morning, the Gospels acceptable to Athanasius (a fiery supporter of Trinity), Alexander’s representative, were found neatly placed on top of the table. It was decided that all the Gospels remaining under the table should be burned.

Unfortunately, there is no record of who kept the key to the room that night!

It became a capital offence to posses an unauthorized Gospel. As a result, over a million Christians were killed in the years following the Council’s decisions. This was how Athanasius tried to achieve unity among the Christians.

381 CE
In 328 CE, Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria died and a stormy election to fill the vacant position followed. The Arians put up a strong resistance, but Athanasius was declared, elected, and consecrated as a bishop. His election was disputed. Those who opposed his election complained of persecution, political intrigue and even magic.

Meanwhile, at Constantine’s court, Constantina, his sister, who feared and loved God, continued to voice her opposition to the killing of the Christians. She never tried to hide the fact that she thought Arius represented true Christianity. She also opposed the treatment of Eusebius of Nicomedia who had been banished by the Emperor for his beliefs. At long last, she had her way, and Eusebius was allowed to come back. His return was a great blow to the Athanasian faction. The Emperor gradually began to lean towards the side of Arius.

In 335 CE, a Council was held in Tyre to celebrate the thirtieth year of Constantine’s reign. Here, Athanasius was accused of Episcopal tyranny, and the atmosphere was so charged with feeling against him that he left the Council without waiting to hear what decisions would be made. He was condemned. The bishops then gathered in Jerusalem where the condemnation of Athanasius was confirmed. Arius was taken back into the Church and allowed to receive communion.
The Emperor invited Arius and his friend Euzous to Constantinople. The peace between Arius and the Emperor was virtually complete, and to further this, the bishops again officially condemned Athanasius. Arius was then appointed the Bishop of Constantinople.

Arius, however, died from poisoning in 336 CE. The Church called it a miracle, but the Emperor suspected murder. He appointed a commission to investigate the death which had taken place in such a mysterious manner. Athanasius was found to be responsible, and he was condemned for the murder of Arius.
The Emperor, greatly moved by the death of Arius, and doubtlessly influenced by his sister, became a Christian. He was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia. But, he died only a year later in 337 CE. Constantine, who had spent so much of his reign persecuting those who affirmed the Divine Unity, died in the faith of those he had killed.

After Constantine’s death, the next emperor, Constantius, also accepted the faith of Arius, and belief in the Divine Unity continued to be officially accepted as the orthodox Christianity. A conference held in Antioch in 341 CE accepted monotheism as the true basis of Christianity. This ruling was confirmed by another Council that was held in Sirmium in 351 CE.

In 360 CE Constantius called the famous Council of Rimini. It was attended by a much larger gathering than the Council of Nicaea. More than four hundred bishops from Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain and Illyricum attended the Council. The majority of the bishops were from the Official Church. However, a creed drawn up by the Arian bishops which stated that the `son’ was not equal or consubstantial to the father, was agreed to by the assembly. It was on this occasion that, according to Jerome, the world was surprised to find itself Arian. This creed was ratified in the Council of Seleucia. However, when the Official bishops realized what they had done, they withdrew their support and reaffirmed the creed of the Council of Nicaea and the doctrine of Trinity.
The Official Church continued to become more established, especially in Rome, and finally found unqualified imperial favor during the rule of Theodosius. On being baptized in 380 CE, Theodosius issued a solemn edict, which proclaimed his own faith, and prescribed the religion for his subjects:

“It is our pleasure that all the nations, which are governed by our clemency and moderation, should steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans; which faithful tradition had preserved, and which is now professed by the pontiff of Damascus, and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the discipline of the apostles, and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe the sole deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; under an equal majesty, and a pious Trinity. We authorize the followers of this doctrine to assume the title of Catholic Christians; and as we judge, that all others are extravagant madmen, we brand them with the infamous name of heretics; and declare that their conven-ticles shall no longer usurp the respectable appellation of churches. Besides the condemnation of Divine justice, they must expect to suffer the severe penalties, which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think proper to inflict upon them.” Gibbon, E., “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, 1823, p.400

Shortly after this edict, Theodosius called the famous Council of Constantinople in 381 CE. A hundred and fifty bishops:

“proceeded without much difficulty or delays, to complete the theological system which had been established by the Council of Nicaea. The vehement disputes of the fourth century had been chiefly employed on the nature of the Son of God; and the various opinions, which were embraced concerning the Second, were extended and transferred, by a natural analogy, to a Third person of the Trinity… final and unanimous sentence was pronounced to ratify the equal Deity of the Holy Ghost.” Gibbon, E., “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, 1823, p.408

It had taken nearly four centuries for a doctrine which Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – had never preached to be accepted in his name, and finally established as `the truth’. In the reign of Constantine, the Official Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, had been clearly subservient to the Emperor. In the reign of Theodosius it began to exert its influence over the Emperor:

“The decrees of the Council of Constantinople has ascertained the `true’ standard of the faith; and the ecclesiastics, who governed the conscience of Theodosius, suggested the most effectual methods of persecution. In the space of fifteen years, he promulgated at least fifteen severe edicts against the `heretics’; more especially against those who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity…” Gibbon, E., “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, 1823, p.412

These edicts formed the foundation, and were the origin of all the laws which the Roman Catholic Church subsequently promulgated in its attempts to eliminate all beliefs, especially affirmation of the Divine Unity, other than its own.

The edicts were directed against the leaders, the places of worship, and the persons of the `heretics’. Their leaders were refused the privileges and payments which were so liberally granted to the leaders of the Official Church. Instead they face the heavy penalties of exile and confiscation of property for preaching and practicing their faith. By eliminating the leaders it was hoped that their followers would be compelled by ignorance and hunger to return within the pale of the Catholic Church.

The rigorous prohibition of the use of their places of worship was extended to every possible circumstance in which the `heretics’ might assemble to worship their Lord. Their gatherings, whether public or secret, by day or by night, in cities or in the country, were equally proscribed. The buildings and the land which they had used for worship were confiscated.

All the followers of the `heretical leaders’ were left to the mercy of the general public. The anathema of the Official Church was complemented by the condemnation of the supreme magistrate. Thus a man could commit any outrage against a `heretic’ with impunity from the law. There were thus ostracized from society and excluded from all but menial work. Since they were not permitted to make a will or receive any benefit from a dead person’s will, they soon lost what little property they had.

All citizens of the Empire were encouraged to participate in the elimination of the `heretics’, who were put to death if they persisted in their faith. A special group of people were organized to facilitate the execution of the edicts and to deal with accusations and complaints against `heretics’:
“Every Roman might exercise the right of public accusation, but the office of the `Inquisitor of the Faith’, a name so deservedly abhorred, was first instituted under the reign of Theodosius.” Gibbon, E., “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, 1823, p.413

Thus the origins of all `Inquisitions’ which were instigated by the Roman Catholic Church and which culminated in the notorious Spanish Inquisition are derived not from the teaching of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –, but from the dictates of a `HOLY’ Roman Emperor.
With the passage of time the Roman Emperors became even more subservient to the Roman Catholic Church. The coronation of the Emperor became a religion ceremony. He was admitted into the lower orders of the priesthood and was made to anathematize all `heresy’ raising itself against the Holy Catholic Church. In hading him the ring, the Pope told him it was a symbol of his duty to destroy heresy. In girding him with the sword, he was reminded that with this he was to strike down the enemies of the Official Church.

This then is the story of the doctrine of Trinity, and how the Roman Catholic Church originated. Neither this Church, nor its doctrines were instituted or preached by Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –. Yet in the name of God and Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –, the Church reached a point where it not only considered itself able to define who a follower of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – was, but also felt itself obliged to eliminate all those who did not fall within this definition, especially those who affirmed Divine Unity.
From the past, let us now come to present and analyze this Trinity on the basis of Bible which we have today with us, and discuss some of the important points.

Bible

As Bible is the basic Doctrine of the Christendom, therefore, like every sensible person let us approach towards the Doctrine of the Christian religion – Bible.

It was an astonishing discovery for me that this ‘Trinity’ does not exist anywhere in the New Testament! Also Jesus never mentioned the trinity and certainly did not explain it in the clearest way.

At first the Christians had a verse of 1 John 5:7-8 from the KJV to back their Trinity theory.
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood; and these three agree in one.” 1 John 5:7-8

In RSV, you find this verse like this:
“There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.” 1 John 5:7-8

When the verse was removed in RSV, it made an affect upon the Christians and doubts regarding there belief on Trinity were raised in people’s mind. Since then, attempts were made to justify the concept of Trinity in some way or the other.

Whole energy is devoted to prove Trinity. No matter how much proofs you provide them and also if their own Christian fellows guide them, they are stubborn to their feetless, illogical concept. You bare in your mind, these words of mine, because, I am going to provide basis to back these words of mine.

Assembling Arguments

At 12:00 noon on a clear sunny day, have you met a person to whom you said: “There is sun” pointing to the sun. And he replied: “That is not sun.” What did you tell him, what was your reply to him, what did you thought of him?

As I said earlier, that, every attempt is made to prove which does not exist. I have come across some of these attempts. Some Christian apologists advocate that God shows us trinity everywhere:

•Time is divided into past, present, and future and they are all time.
•Matter is divided into gas, liquid, and solid and they are all matter.
•Coordinate is divided into X, Y, and Z and they are all coordinates.

Imagine! how belief is being proved.

You can see that these are not hard facts. Anyone can assemble an argument for duality such as day and night, positive and negative, good and evil, etc. Anyone can assemble an argument from the very many natural facts to strengthen his claim. The Pyramid of Giza was exhausted in numbers to prove that it is a cosmic structure. So where does this leave us?

One apologist explained these three ways in which God exists and acts with the following example:

Mr. Abraham is a mechanic; he is also the husband of Mrs. Abraham, and again he is a member of the Evangelical Church. He may be in the workshop repairing cars, he may be at home with his wife, and he may be at prayer in the church. He is always one and same Mr. Abraham. He is at once mechanic, husband and member of his church, yet always the same man.

At first, you see, this apologist stated only 3 jobs for Mr. Abraham to justify the trinity.

Secondly, this apologist ignored to realize one very important point, that:

•When Mr. Abraham is at workshop, he is not present at home with his wife and not present in the church.
•And when he is at home with his wife he is not present in the workshop and not in the church.
•And when he is in the church, he is not at workshop and not in the home with his wife.

When this apologist gives this example to prove Trinity, he shall also tell us that; Shall we believe that God of Trinity is also in one place at one time?
One apologist claims that humanity was not ready for that language of one God with different personalities. The example that he gives to clarify this point is that his son used to call the lid of a can of coke ‘door’ when he was a child. When his son grew up, he knew that it is the lid that opens the coke! Similarly, God was one; and when humanity grew up, God revealed that he is still one but with personalities!

Well, I don’t believe upon this theory because any sensible mind person, after studying the Bible is going to ask a simple question, that; How was the humanity ready to understand other things mentioned in the Bible and not Trinity?

Another apologist said: Why is it so difficult to comprehend (and as an example) that ‘Water’ put into three Separate Vessels always remains Water by its very nature (!!!) flows together again as ONE Water-body when together in One Vessel/one stream/one Ocean.
Three-in-ONE clearly says it all!

Yes, I do agree that Water will remain the same Water, even in three separate Vessels. But, a very important point which this apologist ignored out is that:

1. The characteristics of this Water, present in different Vessels will remain same i.e. UNCHANGED.
2. Now, if you freeze this Water present in one Vessel, it means that the same Water present in other Vessels will also freeze upon freezing. Remember The UNCHANGED Characteristic.
3. Now, think, It means, that when Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – died on the cross (Romans 5:6, John 19:33) The Father will also have this UNCHANGED Characteristic of DYING!?

Let me conclude with a very eloquent example which was once presented by the British scholar Richard Porson. One day, Porson was discussing the “Trinity” with a Trinitarian friend when a buggy containing three men passed by.

“There,” Porson’s friend exclaimed “is an illustration of the Trinity.”
Porson replied “No, you must show me one man in three buggies, if you can.”

Verdicts by Teammates

In following are some of the verdicts by the learned Christian people of Christendom upon Trinity:

The Doctrine of the Trinity Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound 1994 Anthony F. Buzzard Charles F. Hunting

“Those Trinitarians who believe that the concept of a Triune God was such an established fact that it was not considered important enough to mention at the time the New Testament was written should be challenged by the remarks of another writer, Harold Brown:”
“It is a simple fact and an undeniable historical fact that several major doctrines that now seem central to the Christian Faith – such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the nature of Christ – were not present in a full and self-defined generally accepted form until the fourth and fifth centuries. If they are essential today – as all of the orthodox creeds and confessions assert – it must be because they are true. If they are true, then they must always have been true; they cannot have become true in the fourth and fifth century. But if they are both true and essential, how can it be that the early church took centuries to formulate them?” (Emphasis mine)

A History of the Christian Church 2nd Ed. 1985 Williston Walker

“AD 200. . Noetus had been expelled from the Smyrnaean church for teaching that Christ was the Father, and that the Father himself was born, and suffered, and died.”

New Bible Dictionary 1982

“The word trinity is not found in the Bible . . .”

“. . . it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.”

“. . . it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formation of it can be found in the Bible, . . .”

“Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the trinity . . .” (Emphasis mine)

The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995

“. . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament.” (Emphasis mine)

The Encyclopedia Americana 1956

“Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.” (Emphasis mine)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967

“The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.” (Emphasis mine)

Who is Jesus? Anthony Buzzard

“The Old Testament is a strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there or even in any way shadowed forth, is an assumption that has long held sway in theology, but is utterly without foundation.” (Emphasis mine)
The New Encyclopedia Britannica 1976

“Neither the word trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.” (Emphasis mine)

The Shema consists of three sections of scripture Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21, and Numbers 15:37-41. It is called the Shema after the Hebrew word “Hear”, the first word in Deut. 6:4. The Shema was to be recited twice daily once upon arising and once when going to bed. So the Old Testament Jews would start and finish their day with ‘Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.’

Why You Should Believe In The Trinity 1989 Robert M. Bowman Jr.
“The New Testament does not contain a formalized explanation of the trinity that uses such words as trinity, three persons, one substance, and the like.” (Emphasis mine)
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology 1976

“The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence. [said Karl Barth]” (Emphasis mine)
Why You Should Believe In The Trinity 1989 Robert M. Bowman Jr.

“Roman Catholics . . . often claim that the trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was first revealed through the ministry of the church centuries after the Bible was written. This is in keeping with the Roman Catholic belief that Christian doctrine may be based either on the Bible or on church tradition.” (Emphasis mine)

The Roman Catholic Church did not get the doctrine of the trinity from the Bible; they hammered out their own theology of what they wanted God to be over several hundred years, and mixed Greek philosophy with Babylonian mystery religion, and their own private interpretations of the Bible.
In “The Dictionary of the Bible,” John L. McKenzie, S.J., p. 899  bearing the Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, and Imprimi Potest (official Church seals of approval), we read:

“the trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. That belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief.” (Emphasis mine)
The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce Metzger and Michael Cogan, p. 782

“Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon … While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do.” (Emphasis mine)

Christadelphianism, F. J. Wilkin, M.A., D.D, The Australian Baptist, Victoria.

“In the Old Testament, the Unity of God was clearly affirmed. The Jewish creed, repeated in every synagogue today, was ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord (Deut. 6:4). This was the faith of the first Christians, so Paul writes, ‘There is one God and Father of all, Who is above all and through all and in you all” (Eph. 4:6). But gradually some addition or modification of this creed was found necessary. Christians were fully persuaded of the Deity of Jesus Christ and later of the Deity of the Holy Spirit, and they were compelled to relate these convictions with their belief in the Unity of God. During many years, the problem was discussed and many explanations were attempted. One advanced by Sabellius, that became fairly popular was that Christ and the Holy Spirit were successive manifestations of the Supreme Being, but finally, the belief prevailed that the words Father, Son, Spirit, declared eternal distinctions in the Godhead. That is, that the Trinity of Manifestation revealed a Tri-unity of Being. In other words,’ that Christ and the Holy Spirit were coeternal with the Father. With the exceptions of the Unitarians, this is the belief of Christendom today” (Emphasis mine)

Imagine! Christendom themselves were not sure about this doctrine of Trinity; first they believed the Holy Spirit and Christ – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – as “Successive Manifestation” of God. And then, they believe Trinity as Father, Son, and Spirit being “Eternal Distinctions” in Godhead.

Is Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – GOD?

The most important basis for Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – being a “God” is his Son-ship to The God Almighty.

In the 2nd point of the Trinitarian Doctrine of the Gnostic, it states:

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, an only begotten;”
Previously, if you remember, I have dealt with this point (in this article) under the heading “Doctrine of Trinity”. Here, I would deal with it in a different style.

Anglican Bishops Doubt

“More than half of England’s Anglican Bishops say that Christians are not obliged to believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey published today. The pole of 31 of England’s 39 bishops shows that many of them think that Christ’s miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection might not have happened exactly as described in the Bible. Only 11 of the bishops insisted that Christians must regard Christ as both God and man, while 19 said it was sufficient to regard Jesus as ‘God’s supreme agent’” British newspaper the “Daily News” 25/6/84 under the heading “Shock survey of Anglican Bishops”
But what is a messenger of God? Is he not “God’s supreme agent”? This is indeed what Almighty Allah Himself has already told us in the noble Qur’ân 1400 years ago, (interpretations of the meaning)

“…Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God…” Holy Qur’ân 4:171

“Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger: many were the messengers that passed away before him …” Holy Qur’ân 5:75

“And Zachariah and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous.” Holy Qur’ân 6:85

Another very comprehensive study of this matter can be found in the book “The Myth of God Incarnate” which was written by seven theologian scholars in England in 1977 and edited by John Hick. Their conclusion in this matter is that Jesus was “A man approved by God, for a special role within the divine purpose, and….. the later conception of him as God incarnate … is a mythological or poetic way of expressing his significance for us.” (Emphasis mine)

At University of Richmond, a professor, Dr. Robert Alley, after considerable research into newly found ancient documents concludes that:

“….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) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus.” (Emphasis mine)

Is there any confirmation of this in the Bible, yes! If we were to read the Bible we would find that long after the departure of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –, his faithful followers continued to “keep up their daily attendance at the Temple” (Acts 2:46)

It would be beyond belief to imagine that had Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – indeed preached to his apostles that he was God, and if Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – had indeed commanded them to forsake the commandments, that they would then disregard all of this and continue to worship in a Jewish synagogue on a daily basis, let alone the great Temple itself. It is further beyond belief that the Jews of the Temple would stand idly by and allow them to do this if they were preaching the total cancellation of the Law of Moses and that Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon them – was God.

Can any Trinitarian Christian, even in their wildest fantasies, imagine that the Jews in an orthodox Jewish synagogue would stand idly by while he took out his cross and prayed to Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – in the midst of their synagogue and was publicly calling others to worship Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – and forsake the commandments? How much more preposterous to imagine that they would have nothing to say to someone who did that in their most sacred of all synagogues, the Temple, on a daily basis yet.

This is further evidence in support of the Qur’ân, that Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – only called his followers to a continuation of the religion of Moses – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – and not by any means to the total cancellation and destruction of that law.

Astounding, isn’t it? With every passing day, the most learned among the Christian community are slowly recognizing the truth and drawing closer and closer to Islam. These are not Muslims who issued this statement. These are not “liberal” Christians. These are the most learned and most highly esteemed men of the Anglican Church. These men have dedicated their whole lives to the study of the religion of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –, and their study has driven them to the truth which The Almighty God had already revealed to them in the Qur’ân 1400 years ago: That Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – was not God. That God is not a Trinity. And that the stories of the ministry of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – in the Bible have been extensively tampered with by the hands of mankind.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

In 1947, young Bedouin shepherds, searching for a stray goat in the Judean Desert, entered a long-untouched cave, on the shores of the Dead Sea, and found jars filled with ancient scrolls. That initial discovery by the Bedouins yielded seven scrolls and began a search that lasted nearly a decade and eventually produced thousands of scroll fragments from eleven caves. These scrolls were immediately identified as the work of a very devout sect of the Jewish community that lived centuries before the birth of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –.

Hershel Shanks says in his book Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls:

“Such was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, manuscripts a thousand years older than the oldest known Hebrew texts of the Bible, manuscripts many of which were written a hundred years before the birth of Jesus and at least one of which may have been written almost three hundred years before the journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem” Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hershel Shanks, pp. 7-8 (Emphasis mine)

An immediate frantic search ensued through the remaining caves in the region in order to find what other ancient scrolls could be discovered therein. A small group of “international” scholars in Israel were given exclusive access to them and the rest of the world was all but totally barred from gaining even the slightest glimpse of the texts.

Prof. Eisenman observes that one of the major stumbling blocks for the publication of the scrolls was that “in the first place, the team was hardly “international”. Prof. Robert Eisenman was one of the key players in the drama that finally lead to the release of the scrolls.
In his book The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered we read: “In the spring of 1986, at the end of his stay in Jerusalem, Professor Eisenman went with the British scholar, Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield, to see one of the Israeli officials responsible for this – an intermediary on behalf of the Antiquities Department (now ‘Authority’) and the International Team and the Scrolls Curator at Israel Museum. They were told in no uncertain terms ‘You will not see the Scrolls in your lifetimes’”. (Emphasis mine)

This stung them into action, and as a result of this statement, a massive effort was launched and five years later, through a whirlwind of media publicity, absolute access to the scrolls was attained.

A very interesting discovery for me was in the book of Mr. Tom Harpur on The Dead Sea Scrolls

Mr. Tom Harpur in the preface to his book writes: “The most significant development since 1986 in this regard has been the discovery of the title “Son of God” in one of the Qumran papyri (Dead Sea Scrolls) used in relation to a person other than Jesus…..this simply reinforces the argument made there that to be called the Son of God in a Jewish setting in the first century is not by any means the same as being identical with God Himself.” Mr. Tom Harpur “For Christ’s Sake, pp. xii”

The Dead Sea Scrolls have been the subject of avid interest and curiosity for nearly fifty years. Today, scholars agree on their significance but disagree on who produced them. They debate specific passages of individual scrolls and are still assessing their impact on the foundations of Judaism and Christianity.
So, Anglican Bishops say “Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is not Son of God” and The Dead Sea Scrolls say that the title “‘Son of God’ is also used for another person other than Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –.”

Final Explanation

Let us tackle with the point of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – being a “GOD”, as “Trinity” has the most important ingredient of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – as being among the Godheads of Trinity

There are numerous accounts in the New Testament which deny Jesus’ – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him –divinity.In John, Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – says: “The Father is greater than I.” John 14:28By stating that the “Father” is greater than himself, Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – distinguishes himself from God. Also in John 20:17, Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – told Mary Magdalene to tell his followers: “I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God.” John 20:17

Jesus’ – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – reference to God as “my Father and your Father” further emphasizes the distinction between himself and God. Furthermore, by referring to God as “his God”, he left no room for anyone to intelligently claim that he was God.
Even in some of the writings of Paul, which the Church has taken to be sacred, Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is referred to as a “man”, distinct and different from God. In 1st Timothy, 2:5, Paul writes: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1-Timothy 2:5

In Soorah al-A`râf Allah also directed Prophet Muhammad – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – to acknowledge that the time of the Judgment is known only to Him.

“They ask you about the Final Hour: ‘When will its appointed time be?’ Say: ‘Knowledge of it is with my Lord. None can reveal its time besides Him.’” Holy Qur’ân 7:187 (Emphasis mine)

In the Gospel according to Mark 13:31-32, Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is also reported to have denied having knowledge of when the final hour of this world would be, saying: “Heaven and the earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away, but of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in the heaven nor the Son but the Father.” Mark 13:31-32 (Emphasis mine)

One of the attributes of God is Omniscience, knowledge of all things. Therefore, his denial of knowledge of the Day of Judgment is also a denial of divinity, for one who does not know the time of the final hour cannot possibly be God.

As, for the final knock out point for this article, you see, it is easy to claim something about anyone but hard to prove it. Same is the fact with this issue of Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – being claimed as God by the Christendom.
To analyze this issue, we first ask the Christians few very basic and most simple questions

•        Did Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – CLAIMED to be a God?
The answer is “NO”.
•        Now, when a person who didn’t claimed to be a God, why wasting your breath upon him?
•        Why wasting your time in proving a person as God, who himself didn’t do?
On the contrary, let me give you a very interesting and gleaming verse from the Bible, in which Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – himself gives the final knock out to all the beliefs of the people, concerning, whether declaring him as God or even putting him near to God.
In Matthew, Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – responded to one person, who calls upon him: “And behold, one came up to him, saying, ‘O good master, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life (paradise)?’ And he said to him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.’” Matthew 19:16-17 (Emphasis mine)

If he rejected being called “good” and stated that only God is truly good, he clearly implies that he is not God.
Notice here that, Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – becomes uncomfortable at being called as good. Yet, further, he justifies his uncomfortably by stating that Only God is good. This is a classic example of circular reasoning. We can imagine a conversation between Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – and a more critical questioner:

Questioner:        “O good master, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?”

Jesus:        “Why callest thou me good?”

Questioner:        “Why?! I mean, why can’t I call you good?”

Jesus:        “There is none good but one, that is God.”

Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is making a very logical clearance over here:

•    Don’t call me good, because, it is God who is to be called good.
•    I am not good, because I am not God.

Conclusion

We have analyzed, and analyzed with proves that Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – is not God, neither did his followers ever thought him as God. And, Trinity itself is also not taught by Jesus – peace and blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him – nor is it a Biblical doctrine.

In “The Dictionary of the Bible,” John L. McKenzie, S.J., p. 899  bearing the Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, and Imprimi Potest (official Church seals of approval), we read:

“THE TRINITY OF GOD IS DEFINED BY THE CHURCH AS THE BELIEF THAT IN GOD ARE THREE PERSONS WHO SUBSIST IN ONE NATURE. THAT BELIEF AS SO DEFINED WAS REACHED ONLY IN THE 4th AND 5th CENTURIES AD AND HENCE IS NOT EXPLICITLY AND FORMALLY A BIBLICAL BELIEF.” (Emphasis mine)

Praise is to Almighty Allah and Peace and Blessings of Almighty Allah be upon all His Messengers

By UMAR HASSAN

The Arabian churches have rejected the second Epistle of Peter Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation. Similarly the churches of Syria have rejected them from the beginning of their history.

Horne says in the second volume of his commentary (1822) on pages 206 and 207: “The following Epistles and verses have not been included in the Syrian version and the same was the case with Arabian churches; the second Epistle of Peter, the Epistle of Jude, both the epistles of John, the Revelation, the verses from 2-11 of chapter 8 in the gospel of John, and chapter 5 verse 7 of the first Epistle of John. The translator of the Syrian version omitted these verses because he did not believe them to be genuine. Ward confirms this in this book (1841) on page 37: “Rogers, a great scholar of the Protestant faith has mentioned the name of a number of Protestant scholars who declared the following books as false and excluded them from the holy scriptures: the Epistles to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Jacob, the second and the third Epistles of John, and the Revelation.”

Dr Bliss, a learned scholar of the Protestant faith stated: “All the books up until the period of Eusebius are found acceptable,: and he insists on the point that: “The Epistle of Jacob, the second Epistle of Peter and the second and third Epistles of John are not the writing of the Apostles. The Epistles of the Hebrews remained rejected for along period, similarly the Syrian church did not acknowledge the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle to Jude and Revelation.”

Lardner said in vol. 4 of his commentary on page 175: “Cyrillus and the Church of Jerusalem did not acknowledge the book of Revelation in their period. Apart from this, the name of this book does not even occur in the list of Canonical books which he wrote.”

On page 323 of the same volume he further said : “Revelation was not the part of the Syrian version. Barhebroeus and Jacob did not include this book for comments in their commentary. Abedjessu omitted the second Epistle of peter, the second and the third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude and the Revelation from his list. All other Syrian have the same opinion about these books”.

The Catholic Herald (1844) contains the following statement on page 206 of vol. 7: “Rose has written on page 161 of his book that many Protestant scholar consider the book of Revelation non-believable. Professor Ewald has produced powerful arguments to prove that the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John and the Revelations of John cannot be the writings of the same person.’

Eusebius makes the following statement in chapter 25 of vol. 7 of his history: Dionysius says that some ancient writers excluded the book of Revelation from the Holy Scriptures and have completely refuted it. He said that this book is meaningless and a great example of ignorance. Any association of this book with John or with a righteous man or with any Christian is wrong. In fact, this with book was attributed to John by a heretic Cerinthus. I wish I had the powers of excluding it from the Holy Scriptures. As far as my own opinion is concerned, I believe it to be from someone who was inspired. But what I cannot easily believe is that the writer was any of the apostles, or that he was the son of Zebedee or brother of Jacob.”

On the contrary the idiom of the text and style strongly indicate that the writer cannot have been the Apostle John who is mentioned in the Book of Acts because his presence in Asia Minor is not known. This John is totally a different man who is an Asian. There are two graves in the city of Ephesus, both bearing the inscription of John . The contents and the style of this book indicate that John, the Evangelist, is not the writer of this book. Since the text of the Gospel and the Epistles is as refined as the style of the Greeks. Contrary to this the book of Revelation contains a text very different in style from the Greeks, full of uncommon expressions.

Besides this the Evangelists have a common practice in that they do not disclose their names in the Gospels nor in the Epistles, but describe themselves in the first person or in the third person, which writer of this book has mentioned his own name. In the revelation of Jesus in chapter 1 he says: “The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified id by his Angel unto his servant John.” He also writes in chapter 4: “John to the seven churches which are in Asia.” In chapter 9 he says: “I, John, who am your brother, and companion in tribulation and in this kingdom, and patience of Jesus Christ.” Again in 22:8 he says: “I John saw this things and heard them.”

He mentions his name in all the above verses contrary to the general practice of the Evangelists. The explanation that the writer has disclosed his name against his normal practice in order to introduce himself cannot be acceptable because if this had been his object he would have used specific words to gether with his name defining his intention. Fore example, he could have written John, the sun of Zebedee or brother of James. He only uses some general words like “your brother”, companion in patience etc., which do not serve the purpose of his introduction.

Eusebius also says in chapter 3 of vol. 3 of his book: “The first Epistle of Peter is genuine, but his second Epistle should never be included in the Holy scripture. Fourteen Epistles of Paul are, how ever, read. The Epistle to the Hebrews has been excluded by some people.”

He further elaborates in chapter 25 of the same book: “It has been a point of debate whether the Epistles to James, and Jude, the second He epistle of Peter, and the Epistles of John I and II were written by the Evangelists or some other writers of the same names. It should be understood that the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the book entitled, “The Institution of the Disciples” are rejected books and this can be proved. The Revelation should also be included in this list.”

Eusebius also quotes a statement of Origen concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews in chapter 25 of vol. 6 of his book: “It is a popular notion among the people that this Epistle (Hebrews) was written by Clement of Rome (150-220) and some people think that it was written by Luke.”

The Irish missionary Lyon (178) and Hippolitus (220) and Nouclus, the missionary of Rome (251), refused to accept the genuineness of the Epistle to Hebrews. Turtullien, the bishop of Carthage (d. 200) says that this Epistle belongs to Barnabas. Caius, the Presbyter of Rome (d. 251) counted thirteen Epistles of Paul and did not count this Epistle. Cyprien, the bishop of Carthage (248), does not make any mention of this Epistle. The Monophysite churches still refuse to acknowledge the second Epistle of Peter and the second and third Epistles of John.

Scaliger disowns the Epistle to the Hebrews by saying that whoever was the author of this Epistle had wasted his time Eusebius, in chapter 23 of vol. 2 of his book says: “Generally this Epistle is supposed to be false and several ancient writers have mentioned this. Our opinion about the Epistle of Jude is not different but many churches still act according to it.”

The History of the Bible (1850) contains this statement: “Grotius says that this Epistle, that is, the Epistle of Jude was written by Jude Oskolf (Archbishop) the 15 th Oskolf of Jerusalem living in the period of Emperor Hadrian.”?

Eusebius has stated in his history vol.6, chapter 25: “Origen said in vol. 5 of his commentary on the Gospel of John that Paul did not write any thing to the Churches, and if he wrote to any Church it was not more than a few lines.”

According to Origen, all the Epistles which are attributed to Paul, where not written by him.They are hypothetically attributed to him. Perhaps a few lines of Paul might also present in these Epistles. Keeping all this statements in mind, we are led to believe the truth of the following statement made by Festus: “The author of the New Testament is neither Jesus Christ nor his apostles, but a certain man of unknown identity has written them and attributed them to the Evangelists.”

The truth of this statement has been proved beyond doubt. We have already shown earlier in this book that this six Epistles and the book of Revelation were believed in and remained rejected up 363; and they were not acknowledged even by the council of Nicaea in 325. Then in 364 the members of the council of Liodesia acknowledged the six Epistles. The Book of Revelation remained excluded even in this meeting but later on in 397 was acknowledge by the Council of Carthage.

The decision of the two counccil about these cannot be considered as an argument for obvious reasons. Firstly all the councils had acknowledge the Book of Jude. The Council of Liodesia then accepted the ten verses of chapter 10 from the Book of Esther, and the six chapters subsequent to chapter 10. The Song of Solomon, Tobit, Baruch, Ecclesiastes and Maccabees were acknowledged by the council of Carthage, while all the subsequent councils cofirmed the decision of the above three councils.

Now, if the decisions of these councils were founded on authenticated arguments, which they most certainly were not, then the Protestant would have accepted them, but on the other hand, if their decision s were arbitrary, as was in fact the case, it was necessary for the Protestant s to reject all of these books. We are very much surprised to note that they accepted the councils` decision regarding the six Epistles as well as the Book of Revelation but rejected it concerning the other books, especially the book of Judith which had been unanimously acknowledged by the councils. This decision again arbitrary and with out justification.

Their only proffered reasons, does the original versions of these books has been lost, cannot be accepted because Jerome confirmed the fact that he found the original versions of Jude and Tobata in the Chaldean language and the origional book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew, and these books have been translated from the original versions. On this basis, the Protestants should at least accept these books and they should in fact reject the Gospel of Matthew since the original of that book was lost.

The statement of Horne, already quoted previously, proves the fact that the ancient Christians were not very particular about looking into the Authenticity of their traditions. They used to accept and write all kinds of mythical and fabulous stories and traditions which were followed and acted upon by the people of subsequent times. In view of this, the most acceptable conclusion is that the scholars of these councils must have heard some of these traditions, which, after having been rejected for centuries, where acknowledged by them without any authentication.

Because the holy scriptures are treated by the Christians in the same way as ordinary books of law and civil administration, they continually changed and altered the texts suit their needs. A few examples of this will be sufficient to establish our claim.

The Greek translation was consistently acknowledged as the authoritative text from the time of the Apostles to the 15th century. The Hebrew versions were believed to have been distorted and the Greek translation was considered the accurate version. Subsequently the position of theses books was altogheter changed. The destroyed version was acknowledged as accurate and accurate one as distorted.

The Book of Daniel in the Greek version was genuine in the eyes of the early scholars, but after Origen declared that it was incorrect, they rejected it and replaced it with the version of Theodotion.

The Epistle of Aristias remained on the least of the Holly Scriptures but in the seventeenth century some objections were raised against it and suddenly it turned into a false document of the eyes of all the Protestant scholars.

The Latin version is believed genuine by all the Catholics, while it is considered distorted and unbelievable by the Protestants.

The small book of Genesis remained genuine and believable up until the 15th century while the same book was declared false and rejected in the 16th century.

The Third Book of Ezra is still acknowledge by the Greek church but has been rejected by both the Catholics and Protestants. Similarly the Song of Solomon was considered genuine a part of he Holly Scriptures and can still be found in the Codex Alexandrine, yet it is now rejected.

The gradual realization of the distortions present in a number of their holy books is bound to lead the Christians, sooner or later, to admit to the truth of the fact that the great part of the Judeo-Christian scriptures have undergone great changes and distortions.

We have shown that the Christians do not possess any authentic records or acceptable arguments for the authenticity of the books of either the Old Testament of The New Testament.

The Christian author of Meezn-ul-Haq could not produce any authority regarding the author of this book. He only conjectured and said that Matthew might possibly have writtten it in the Greek language. In view of this fact this translation is not acceptable and is liable to be rejected.

The Penny Encyclopedia says regarding the Gospel of Matthew:

“This Gospel was written in the Hebrew language and in the language which was in vogue between Syria and Chaldea in 41 AD Only the Greek translation is available. And the present Hebrew version is only a translation of the same Greek version”

Thomas Ward, a Catholic writer, says in his book:

“Jerome explicitly stated in his letter that some ancient scholars were suspicious about the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark, and some o them had doubt about some verses of chapter 23 of the Gospel of Luke; and some other scholars were doubtful about the fist two chapters of this Gospel. These two chapters have not been included by the Marchionites in their book.”

Norton writes in his book printed in 1837 in Boston:

“This Gospel contains a passage running from verse none to the end of the last chapter which calls for research. It is surprising that Griesbach has not put any sign of doubt about its text, since he has presented numerous arguments to prove that this part was an addition by some later people.”

Later in his book, giving some more arguments, he said:

“This proves that the passage in question is doubtful, especially if we keep in mind the habit of writers in that they usually prefer to add to the text rather than to omit from it.”

Griesbach is one of the most reliable scholars of the Protestant faith.

THE INAUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

There is no authority for the claim that the Gospel of John in the book of the Apostle John to whom it has been attributed. On the contrary, there are several arguments that strongly refute this claim.

THE FIRST ARGUMENT:

Before and after the period of the Prophet Jesus, the style of writing and the method of compiling books was similar to the style of the present Muslim writers. It does not appear from this Gospel that John was making his own statements.

It is not possible to refute the obvious evidence which the text itself offers unless strong arguments are presented to negate it.

THE SECOND ARGUMENT:

This Gospel contains this statement in 21:24:

“This is the disciple which testifieth of these things: and we know that his testimony is true,“ describing the Apostle John. This denotes that the writer of this text is not John himself. It leads us to guess that the writer has found some script written by John and has described the contents in his own language making some omissions and additions to the contents.

THE THIRD ARGUMENT:

In the second century AD when the authorities refused to accept this Gospel as the book of John, Irenaeus , a disciple of Polycarp the disciple of John, was living. He did not make any statement to negate those who refused to accept the book and did not testify that he had heard Polycarp saying that this Gospel was the book of John, the Apostle. Had it been the book of John, Polycarp must have known it. It cannot be the truth that he heard Polycarp saying many secret and profound things which he related but did not hear a single word about a matter of such importance. And it is even more unbelievable that he had heard it and forgot, since we know about him that he had great trust in verbal statements and used to memorize them. This is evident from the following statement of Eusebius regarding the opinion of Irenaeus about verbal statements:

“I Listened to these words with great care by the grace of God. And wrote them not only on paper, but also on my heart. For a long time, I have made it my habit to keep reading them.”

It is also unimaginable that the remembered it and did not state it for the fear of his enemies. This argument also rescues us from the blame of refusing the genuineness of this Gospel from religious prejudice. We have seen that it was refused in the second century AD and could not be defended by the encient Christian.

Celsus, who was a pagan scholar of the second century AD, fearlessly declared that the Christians had distorted their Gospels three or four times or more. This change of or distortion changed the contents of the text.

Festus, the chief of the Manichaeans and a scholar publicly announced in 4th century AD:

“It has been established that the book of the New Testament are neither the books of the Christ, nor are they the books of his apostles but unknown people have written them and attributed them to the apostles and their friends.”

THE FOURTH ARGUMENT:

The Catholic Herald, printed in 1844,includess the statement in vol.3on page 205 that Stapelin said in his book that the Gospel of John was undoubtedly written by student of scholar in Alexandria. See how blatantly he claims it to be a book of a student.

THE FIFTH ARGUMENT:

Bertshiender, a great scholar said:

“The whole of this Gospel and all the Epistles of John were definitely not written by him but by some other person in the second century A.D.”

THE SIXTH ARGUMENT:

Grotius, a famous scholar, admitted: “Three used to be twenty chapters in this Gospel. The twenty-first chapter was added after the death of John, by the church of Ephesus.”

THE SEVENTH ARGUMENT:

The Allogin, a sect of the Christians in the second century AD, disowned this Gospel and all the writing of John.

THE EIGHT ARGUMENT:

The fist eleven verses of chapter 8 are not accepted by any of the Christian writers and it will soon be shown that these verses do not exist in the syriac version.

If there were any authentic proof to support it most of the Christian writer would have not made such statements. Therefore the opinion of Bertshiender and Stapelin is undoubtedly true.

THE NINTH ARGUMENT:

Horne in chapter two of vol.4 of his commentary says:

“The information that has been covered to us by the historians of the church regarding the period of the four Gospels is defective and indefinite. It dose not help us reach any meaningful conclusion. The ancient theologians have confirmed absurd statements and written them down. Subsequent people accepted them just out of respect to them. These false statements thus were communicated from one writer to another. A ling period of time has passed, and it has become very difficult to find out the truth.”

Further in the same volume he says: The first Gospel was written either in 73 A.D. or 38 A.D. or in 43 A.D. or in 48 A.D. or in 61, 62, 63 and 64 A.D. The second Gospel was written in 56 A.D. or at any time after it up until 65 A.D. and most possible in 60 or 63 A.D. The third Gospel was written in 53 or 63 or 64 A.D. The fourth Gospel was written in 68, 69, 70 or in 89 or 98 A.D.”

First of all, the name of the author of this book is not known with certainty, and the period of its composition is also unknown.

The Christian scholars profess five different opinions:

1. Gerrard, Diodat Huet, Albert Patrick, Tomlin and Dr Gray believe that it was written by the Prophet Joshua himself.

2. Dr Lightfoot claims that Phineas is the author of this book.

3. Calvin says that it was written by Eleazer.

4. Moldehaur and Van Til believe it to have been written by Samuel.

5. Henry claimed that it was written by the Prophet Jeremiah.

Readers should note the contradictory opinions of these Christian scholars, especially keeping in mind the fact that Joshua and Jeremiah are separated by a period of 850 years. The presence of this great difference in opinion is, in itself, a strong evidence that the book is not believed to be authentic by them. Their opinions are generally based on their calculations supported by some vague notions indicating that a certain person might be the author of a certain book. If we make a comparison between Joshua 15: 63 and Samuel 5: 6-8, it is quite clear that this book was written before the seventh year of the ascension of the Prophet David to the throne. Joshua 15; 63 says,”As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Israel could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jjuresalem unto this day”. The above statement may be compared with the statement made by the Second Book of Samuel which confirms that the Jebusites were living in Jerusalem up until the seventy year of the ascension of David to throne (5: 6-8),the author of Joshua`s statement said that the Jebusites dwelt in Jerusalem “unto this day “meaning the seventh year of David`s ascension to throne. This clearly implies that the author belonged to that period.

Similarly the same book includes this statement, “And they drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer, but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day.” We find another statement in I King 9:16 that the Pharaoh had driven out the Canaanites from Gezer in the time of Solomon. This leads to the conclusion that the book was written before the time of Solomon. G.T. Menley has therefore admitted that a comparison of Josh. 15:63 with 2 Samuel 5:7-9 and of Josh. 16:10, with I Kings 9:16 leads to the conclusion that this book was written before Rehobo`aam. See 2-Samuel 1:18

In view of this evidence, it is logical to conclude that the author of the book of Joshua must have lived after the Prophet David.

THE STATUS OF THE BOOK OF JUDGES

The book of Judges is the third most respected book of the Old Testament. Again we are faced by a great difference of opinion regarding the author of the book and the possible period of its compilation.

Some Christian writers claim it to be the book of Phineas, while some other believe it to have been written by Hezekiah. In neither of these cases can it be said to be a revealed book because neither Phineas nor Hezekiah are Prophets. Hezekiah was the King of Judah. (2 Kings 18 and Chr.32)

Some other writers have asserted that this book was written by Ezra. It may be noted that difference of time between Ezra and Phineas is not less than nine hundred years.

This difference of opinion could not arise if the Christians possessed any real evidence concerning it. According to the Jews all these claims and assertions are wrong. They, on the basis of conjecture, attribute it to Samuel. So there are six different opinions about it.

THE BOOK OF THE RUTH

This book, too, is the subject of great differences of opinion. Some Christians think that it was written by Hezekiah, in which case it is not a revealed book. Some others hold the opinion that the author of this book is Ezra. All other Christians and the Jews attribute it to Samuel.

It is stated in the introduction to the Bible printed in Strasbourg in 1819 that the book of Ruth is a collection of family stories and the Book of Job is only a tale.

THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH

The same kind of difference is present regarding the author and the period of this book. The most popular opinion is that it was written by Nehemiah. Athanasius, Epiphanius and Chrysostome believe it to have been written by Ezre. According to popular opinion it cannot be accepted as a revealed book.

The first 26 verses of chapter 12 are different from the rest of the book of Nehemiah since in the first eleven chapters Nehemiah is referred to in the first person, while in this chapter the third person is used for no apparent reason. Furthermore, we find Darius, the King of Persia being mentioned in verse 22 of the same chapter, when in fact he lived one hundred years after the death of Nehemiah. The Christian commentators have to declare this anomaly as a later addition. The Arabic translator of the Bible has omitted it altogether.

THE BOOK OF JOB

The history of the book of Job is even more obscure and uncertain than the other books. There are about twenty-four contradictory opinions regarding its name and preiod. Maimonides, a celebrated scholar and Rabbi of the Jews, Michael, Leclerc, Semler, Hock, Isnak and other Christians insist that Job is a fictitious name and the book of Job is no more than a fiction. Theodore has also condemned it. Luther, the leader of the Protestant faith, holds it as purely a fictitious story.

The book has been attributed to various names on the basis of conjecture. However if we assume that the book was written by Elihu or by a certain unknown person who was a contemporary of Manasse, it is not acceptable as a prophetic and revealed text.

THE PSALMS OF DAVID

The history of this book, too, is similar to the history of the book of Job. We do not find any documentary evidence to show a particular man to be its writer. The period of collection of all the psalms is also not known. Whether the names of the Psalms are Prophetic or not is also unknown. The ancient Christians have different opinions about it. The writers, Origen, Chrysostome and Augustine believe it to have been written by the Prophet David himself. On the other hand, writers like Hilary, Athanasius, Jerome and Eusebius have strictly refuted this. Horne says:

“Undoubtedly the former statement is altogether wrong.

According to the opinion of the latter group, more than thirty psalms are from unknown authors. Ten psalms from 90 to 99 are supposed to be from Moses and a seventy-one paslms are claimed to be from David . Psalm 88 is atteibuted to Heman and 89 to Ethan, while Psalms 72 and 177 are said to be from Solomon, And three psalms are believed to be from Jeduthun and one hundred and twenty psalms from Asaph , but some Christians refute that Psalms 74 and 79 are written by him. Eleven psalms are supposed to have been written by three sons of kore.

Some writers even think that the author of these psalms to the various writers concerned, while yet others of the psalms were written by another unknown persom. Calmat says that only forty-five psalms were written by Daved, while the rest are by other people.

The ancient Jewish scholars enumerate the following names as the writers of the Psalms: the Prophets Adam, Abraham, Moses; and Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun and the three sons of Kore. David only having collected them togther. According to them David, himself is not the author of any of the Psalms; he is just the collector of them.

Horne said that the judgement of modem Christian and Jewish scholars is that this book was written by the following authors: the Prophets Moses, David and Solomon; and Asaph, Aeman, Ethan, Jeduthun and the three sons of kore.

The same contradiction and confusion is found regarding the period of its compilation. Some scholars hold them to have been written and compiled in the time of David; some believed that they were collected by some friends of Hzekiah in his period; while some others think that they were compiled in different periods. Similar differences are also expressed about the names of the Psalms. Some claim that they are revealed, while others think that someone who was not a prophet had called them with these names.

Psalm 72, verse 20 says, “the Prayers of David, the son of Jesse are ended. “This verse has been omitted in the Arabic translations apparently with the purpose of supporting the opinion of the first group that the whole Book of Psalms was written by the Prophet David. On the other hand it is also possible that this verse might have been added later to support the second group’s opinion that the Prophet David was not the author of this book. In both cases the distortion of the text is proved either by omission of this verse or by addition of it.

THE BOOK OF PROVERBS

The condition of this book, too, is not much different from the books we have discussed so for. A few writers have claimed that the author of this whole book is the Prophet Solomon himself. This claim is false because of variations in linguistic idioms and style, and repetition of several verses found in this book.

Apart from this the first verses of chapters 30 and 31 also refute this assumption.

Even if we accept that some part of this book could have been written by Solomon which is possibly true for 29 chapter, these were not collected or compiled in is his period because there is no doubt that several of them were collected by Hezekiah as is evident from 25:1:

“These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, King of Judah, copied out.“

This was done 270 years after the death of Solomon.

Some writers are of the opinion that the first nine chapters of the book were not written by Solomon. Chapters 30 and 31 are attributed to Agur and Lemuel, as cited, but strangely the nor are they sure of their being prophets.

On the basis of their usual presumptions they hold that they were Prophets. However, this kind of conjecture is not acceptable to an impartial reader. Some of them think that Lemuel is the second name of Solomon, but Henry and Scott state: “Holden has rejected the assumption that Lemuel was another name of Solomon, and he has proved that Lemuel was a separate person. Perhaps he has got sufficient proof that the book of Lemuel and the book of Agur are revealed books. Otherwise they could have not been included in the canonical books.“

Adam Clarke says in his commentary: “This claim is not supported by any evidence that Lemuel was Solomon. This chapter was written a long period after his death. The idioms of the Chaldean language that are found in the beginning of this book also refute this claim.“

And he comments on chapter 31: “Certainly this chapter could not have been written by Solomon. “

Verse 25 of this chapter says: “there are also proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah copied out. “

Verse 30 in the Persian version of the Bible printed 1838 says: “The words Agur, the son of Jakeh, even the Prophecy: the man spoken unto Ithiel and Ucal. “

And the Bible printed in the Persian language in 1845 contains this: “The word of Acur, son of Jafa, were such that the man spoke unto Ithiel, even Ithiel and Ucal. “

The majority of writers have admitted that the book was compiled by many people including Hezekiah, Isaiah and perhaps Ezra.

THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES

This book, too has a history of serious differences. Some writers have claimed that its author was Solomon. Rabbi kammchi, a famous Jewish scholar, said that it was written by Isaiah. The scholars of the Talmud attribute it to Hezekiah while Grotius says that this book was written by Zorobabel for his son, Ebihud. John, a Christian scholar, and some German scholars calculate it to have been written after the release of the Israelites from Babylon.

THE BOOK OF THE SONG OF SOLOMON

The history of this book is even more obscure and uncertain. Some of the writers attribute it to the Prophet Solomon or some person belonging to his time. Dr Kennicot and some writers coming after him and the opinion that the claim of its being written by Solomon was historically wrong and that it was written a long time after his death. Theodore, a missionary who lived in the fifth century AD, strictly condemned his book and the Book of Job, while Simon and Leclerc did not acknowledge it as a genuine book. Whiston said it was a foul song and should be excluded from the holy books of the Old Testament. Some others have made the same judgement about it. Semler holds it as a forged and fabricated book. The Catholic, Ward, has pointed out that Castilio declared it to be a vile song decided that it should be excluded from the books of the Old Testament.

THE BOOK OF DANIEL

The Greek Translation, the Latin translation and all the translations of the Roman Catholics include the Song of Three Children and chapter 13 and 14 of this book. The Roman Catholic faith acknowledges this song and the two chapters, but the Protestants disapprove of it and do not consider it genuine.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER

The name of the writer of this book as well as the time of its compilation is unknown. Christian scholars believe that it was written by scholars living in the period between Ezra and Simon. A Jewish Scholar Phlion claims that it was written by Jehoiachin, the son of Joshua,who had come to Jerusalem after the release from Babylon. St Augustine believed it to be a book of Ezra. Some other writers attribute it to Murdoch and Esther. Other details of this book will later be discussed in chapter 2 of this book.

THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH

We are certain that chapter 52 of this book cannot be claimed to have been written by Jeremiah. Similarly the eleventh verse of chapter 10 cannot be attributed to Jeremiah. In the former case, because verse 64 of chapter 51 of the Persian Version 1838 contains: “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.“ While the Persian Translation of 1839 AD says: “The words of Jeremiah ended here.“

In the latter case the reason is that verse 11of chapter 10 is in the Chaldean language, while the rest of the is in Hebrew. It is impossible to trace who inserted them in the text. The commentators have made several conjectures regarding the persons making this insertion. The compilers of Henry and Scott remarked about this chapter:

“It appears that Ezra or some other person inserted it to elucidate the predictions occurring in the previous chapter.”

Horne says on the page 194 of vol. 4 :

“This chapter was added after the death of Jeremiah and the release from the captivity of Babylon, some of which we find mentioned in this chapter too.”

Further in this volume he says:

“Certainly the words of this prophet are in the Hebrew language but chapter 10:11 is in the Chaldean language.”

The Reverend Venema said:

“This verse is a later addition.”

THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

A public debate was held between Karkanar, a religious leader of the Roman Catholics, and Warren about this book. This discussion was published in 1852 in Agra (India). Karkaran writes in third letter

That Stalin, a learned German writer, had said that chapter 40 and all the chapters up to chapter 66 of the book of Isaiah were not writer by Isaiah.

This implies that twenty-seven chapters of this book are not the writings of Isaiah.

“So were all those that were numbered of the Children of Israel, by the house of their fathers, from twenty years old and upward all that were able to go forth to war in Israel; even all they that were numbered were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty. But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not number among them.”

These verses imply that the number of fighting people of the Israelites was more than six hundred thousand. This number excludes the men, women and children of the Levi Tribe and all the women of the other tribes of the Israelites and all those men who were under twenty years of age. If we include the number of all the people of Israelites excluded from this enumeration, their total should not be less than twenty-five hundred thousand. This statement is wrong for five reasons.

THE FIRST REASON.

The total number of men and women of the Israelites was seventy at the time of their arrival in Egypt. This is evident from Genesis 46 : 27, Exodus 1 ;5 and Deuteronomy 10: 22. The greatest possible period of their stay in Egypt is 215 years. It can not be more.

It has been mentioned in the first chapter of the Book of Exodus that the sons of the people of Israel were killed and their daughters left to live, 89 years before their liberation from Egypt.

Now keeping in mind their total number at their arrival in Egypt, the duration of their stay in Egypt, and the killing of their sons by the King, if we assume that after every twenty five years they doubled in number and their sons were not killed at all, even then their number would not reach twenty-five thousand in the period of their stay in Egypt let alone twenty-five hundred thousand. If we keep in view the killing of their sons, this number becomes a physical impossibility.

THE SECOND REASON:

It must be far from the truth that their number increased from seventy to twenty-five hundred thousand in such a short period, while they were subjected to the worst kind of persecution and hardships by the king of Egypt. In comparison, the Egyptians who enjoyed all the comforts of life did not increase at that rate.

The Israelites lived a collective life in Egypt. If they are believed to have been more than twenty-five hundred thousand it would be a unique example in human history that a population of this size is oppressed and persecuted and their sons killed before their eyes without a sigh of resistance and rebellion from them. Even animals fight and resist to save their offspring.

THE THIRD REASON:

The Book of Exodus chapter 12taken with them the cattle herds and flocks, and the same book also informs us that they crossed the river in a single night; and that they used to travel every day and that Moses used to give them verbal orders to march.

THE FOURTH REASON:

If the number were correct it would necessitate that they had a place for their camp large enough to accommodate twenty-five hundred thousand of people along with their herds of cattle. The fact is that the area surrounding Mount Sinai, and the area of the twelve springs in Elim are not sufficiently large to have accommodated the Israelites and their cattle.

THE FIFTH REASON:

We find the following statement in Deuteronomy 7:22.

“And the Lord, thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee”.

It is geographecally true that Palestine extended nearly 200 miles in length and ninety in breadth. Now, if the number of the Israelites was really twenty-five hundred thousand, and they had captured Palestine after killing all its residents all at once, how was it possible for the beasts to have overcome the number of the Israelites, because had they been much less in number than stated, even then, they would have been enough to populate such a small area.

Ibn Khaldun, also refuted this number in his “Muqaddimma” Saying that, according to the researches made by the scholars, the gap between Israel and Moses is only three generations. It is unbelievable that in a period of only three generations they could increase to that number.

In view of the above arguments, it is obvious that the People of the Book “(The Christians and the Jews do not possess any arguments to prove their claim that the books of the Pentateuch were written or conveyed by the Prophet Moses.

It is, therefore, not binding upon us to believe in these books until irrefutable arguments to support their claim.

THE FIRST ARGUMENT:

The existence of the Torah, Pentateuch, is not historically known before King Josiah, the son of Amon. The script of the Pentateuch which was found by a priest called Hilkiah 18 years after Josiah`s ascension to throne is not believable solely on the grounds that it was found by a priest Apart from this obvious fact, this book had again disappeared before the invasion of Jerusalem by Nebuchdnezzar

Not only the Pentateuch, but also all the books of the Old Testament were destroyed in this historical calamity. History does not evince any evidence of the existence of these books after this invasion

According to the Christians the Pentateuch was rewritten by the Prophet Ezra.

This book along with its copies were again destroyed and burnt by Antiochus at the time of his invasion of Jerusalem.

THE SECOND ARGUMENT:

It is an accepted notion of all Jewish and Christian scholars that the First and Second books of Chronicles were rewritten by Ezra with help of the Prophets Haggai and Zechariah, but we note that the seventh and eighth chapters of this book consist of descriptions of the descendants of Benjamin which are mutually contradictory. These descriptions also contradict statements in the Pentateuch, firstly in the names, and secondly in counting the number of the descendants. In chapter 7 we read that Benjamin had three sons and in chapter 8 we find that he had five sons while the Pentateuch claims that he had ten sons

Both the Christian and the Jewish scholars are unanimous on the point that the statement made by the First Book of Chronicles is erroneous, and they have justified this error by saying that the Prophet Ezra could not distinguish and separate the sons from the grandsons, because the genealogical tables from which he had quoted were defective and incomplete.

It is true that three prophets (who wrote the Pentateuch) were necessarily sincere followers of the Pentateuch . Now if we assume that the Pentateuch of Moses was the same one written by these Prophets, it seems quite illogical that they should deviate and or make mistakes in the divine book, neither was it possible that Ezra would have wrongly trusted an incomplete and defective table of genealogy in a matter of such importance.

Had the Pentateuch written by Ezra been the same famous Pentateuch, they would have not deviated from it. These evidences lead us to believe that the present Pentateuch was neither the one revealed to Moses and written down by him nor the one written by Ezra by inspiration. In fact, it is a collection of stories and traditions which were current among the Jews, and written down by their scholars without a critical view to their authorities.

Their claim that three prophets committed mistakes in copying the names and number of the sons of Benjamin leads us to another obvious conclusion that, according to the Christians, the prophets are not protected from wrong action and can be involved in committing major sins, similarly they can make mistakes in writing or preaching the holy books.

THE THIRD ARGUMENT:

Any reader of the Bible making a comparison between chapters 45 and 46 of the book of Ezekiel, and chapters 28 and 29 of the Book of Numbers, will find that they contradict each other in religious doctrine. It is obvious that the prophet Ezekiel was the follower of the doctrines of the Pentateuch. If we presume that Ezekiel had the present Pentateuch how could he have acted upon those doctrines without deviating from it.

Similarly we find in various books of the Pentateuch the statement that the sons will be accountable for the sins committed by their fathers up until three generations. Contrary to this, the Book of Ezekiel (18 : 20) says, “Son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him”.

This verse implies that no-one will be punished for the sin of others. And this is the Truth. The Holy Qur`an has confirmed it. It says:

“No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another.”

THE FOURTH ARGUMENT:

The study of the books of Psalms, Nehemiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel testifies to the fact that the style of writing in that age was similar to the present style of Muslim authors; that is to say, readers can easily distinguish between the personal observations of the author and his quotations from other writers.

The Pentateuch in particular, is very different in style, and we do not find even a single place to indicate that the author of this book was Moses. On the contrary it leads us to believe that the author of the books of the Pentateuch is someone else who was making a collection of current stories and customs of the Jews. However, in order to separate the statements which he thought were the statements of God and Moses, he prefixed them with the phrases, “God says”or “Moses said”. The third person has been used for Moses in every place. Had it been the book of Moses, he would have used the first person for himself. At least there would have been one place where we could find Moses speaking in the first person. It would certainly have made the book more respectable and trustworthy to its followers. It must be agreed that a statement made in the first person by the author carries more weight and value than his statement made by someone else in the third person. Statements in the first person cannot be refuted without powerful arguments, while statements in the third person require to be proved true by the one who wishes to attribute those statements to the author.

THE FIFTH ARGUMENT:

The present Pentateuch includes within its chapters some statements which are historically impossible to attribute to Moses. Some verses explicitly denote that the author of this book cannot have existed prior to the Prophet David but must either be a contemporary of David of later than him.

The Christian scholars have tried to justify the opinion that these sentences were added later on by certain prophets. But this is merely a false assumption which is not supported by any argument. Moreover, no prophet of the Bible has ever mentioned that he has added a sentence to a certain chapter of a certain book. Now unless these chapters and sentences are not proved through infallible arguments to have been added by a prophet they remain the writings of someone other than the Prophet Moses.

THE SIXTH ARGUMENT:

The author of Khulasa Saiful-Muslimeen has quoted from volume 10 of Penny Encyclopaedia (which we reproduce here from Urdu) that Dr Alexander Gides, an acknowledged Chritstian writer, has said in his introduction to the New Bible:

“I have come to know three things beyond doubt through some convincing arguments:

1 The present Pentateuch in not the book of Moses.

2 This book was written either in Cana`an or Jerusalem. That is to say, it was not written during the period when the Israelites were living in the wilderness of the desert.

3 Most probably this book was written in the period of the Prophet Solomon, that is, around one thousand years before Christ, the period of the poet Homer. In short, its composition can be proved to be about five hundred years after the death of Moses.

THE SEVENTH ARGUMENT:

Norton, a learned Christian scholar has said, (we reproduce here an abridgement translated from Urdu).

“There appears no appreciable difference between the node of expression of the Pentateuch and the idiom of the other books of the Old Testment which were written after the release of the Israelites from the captivity of Babylon, while they are separated by not less than nine hundred years from each other. Human experience testifies to the fact that languages are influenced and change rapidly with the passing of time. For example, if we compare current English language with the language of four hundred years ago we notice a considerable difference in style, expression and idiom between the two languages. By the absence of this difference in the language of these books Luselen, a learned scholar, who had great command over Hebrew language assumed that all these books were written in one and the same period.

THE EIGHTH ARGUMENT:

We read in the book of Deuteronomy (27: 5) “And there shalt thou build an altar unto the Lord, thy God, an altar of stones. Thou shalt not lift up any iron tool upon them. And thou shall write upon the stones all the work of this law very plainly.”

This verse appears in Persian translation published in 1835 in these words:

“And write all the words of the Pentateuch (Torah) on the stones very clearly.” In the Persian translation of 1845, it appears like this:

“Write the words of this Torah (Pentateuch) on the stones in bright letters.”

And the book of Joshua says:

“Then Joshua built an altar unto the Lord God of Israel in Mount Ebal, as Moses, the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel.” (8 : 30, 31)

And verse 32 of the same chapter contains:

“And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel.”

(Josh. 8 : 32).

All these extracts sufficiently show that the laws of Moses or the Pentateuch was just as much as could be written on the stones of an altar.

Now if we presume that it is the present Pentateuch that is referred to in the above verses this would be impossible.

THE NINTH ARGUMENT:

Norton, a missionary, said, “Writing was not in vogue in the time of Moses, “indicating that if writing was not in use in the period of Moses, he could not be the author of the Pentateuch. If the authentic books of history confirm his statement this can be a powerful argument in this connection. This statement is also supported by the book “English History” printed by Charles Dallin Press, London in 1850. It says “The people of the past ages used to scribble on plates of copper, wood and wax, with needles of iron and brass of pointed bones. After this the Egyptians made use of the leaves of the papyrus reed. It was not until the 8th century that paper was mace from cloth. The pen was invented in the seventh century AD.”

If this historian is acceptable to Christians, the claim made by Norton is sufficiently confirmed.

THE TENTH ARGUMENT:

The present Pentateuch contains a large number of errors while the words of the Prophet Moses must have been free of this defect. Genesis 46:15 says:

“These be the sons of Leah which she bore unto Jacob in Padanaram with his daughter Dinah: all the souls of his cons and daughters were thirty and three”

The figure 33 is wrong. The correct number is 34. The famous commentator Horsely also admitted this mistake. He said :

“If you count the names, including Diana, the total comes to 34 and Dianah must be included as is evident form the number of the sons of Zilpha, because Sarah was one of the sixteen.

Similarly the Book of Deuteronomy 23 : 2 contains this statement:

“A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even to his tenth generation shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”

This statement is also not correct. On the basis of this statement the Prophet David and all his ancestors up to Perez would be excluded from the congregation of the Lord because Perez was an illegitimate son of Judah. This is quite evident form the description in chapter 38 of the Book of Genesis. And the Prophet David happens to be in his tenth

Generation according to the genealogical descriptions of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Needless to say that the Prophet David was the leader of the congregation of the Lord, and according to the Psalms of David he was the first born of God.

We have already seen how Catholic and Protestant scholars differ on the question of the authenticity of certain of these books. There are yet more books of the Bible which have been rejected by Christians. They include the Book of Revelation, the Book of Genesis, the Book of Ascension, the Book of Mysteries, the Book of Testament and the Book of Confession which are all ascribed to the Prophet Moses. Similarly a fourth Book of E zra is claimed to be from the Prophet Ezra and a book concerning Isaiah’s ascension and revelation are ascribed to him. In addition to the known book of Jeremiah, there is another book attributed to him. There are numerous sayings which are claimed to be from the Prophet Habakkuk. There are many songs which are said to be from the Prophet Solomon. There more than 70 books, other than the present ones, of the new Testament, which are ascribed to Jesus, Mary, the apostles and their disciples.

The Christians of this age have claimed that these books are false and are forgeries. The Greek Church, Catholic church and the Protestant Church are unanimous on this point. Similarly the Greek Church claims that the third book of Ezra is a part of the Old Testament and believes it to have been written by the Prophet Ezra, while the Protestant and Catholic Churches have declared it false and fabricated. We have already seen the controversy of the Catholics and Protestants regarding the books of Baruch, Tobit, Jude, the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastics and both the books of Maccabees. A part of the book of Esther is believable to the Catholics but essentially rejected by the Protestants.

In this kind of situation it seems absurd and beyond the bounds of reason to accept and acknowledge a book simply for the reason that it has been ascribed to a prophet by a group of scholars without concrete support. Many times we have demanded renowned Christian scholars to produce the names of the whole chain of narrators right from the author of the book to prove their claim but they were unable to so. At a public debate held in India, one of the famous missionaries confessed to the truth that the absence of authoritative support for those books was due to the distress and calamities of the Christians in the first three hundred and thirteen years of their history. We ourselves examined and probed into their books and took great pains to find any such authorities but our findings did not lead beyond conjecture and presumption. Our impartial search in the sources of their books showed that most of their assertions are based on nothing but presumptions.

It has already been said that presumption and conjecture are of no avail in this matter. It would be quite justified on our part if we refused to believe in these books until we had been given some arguments and authorities to prove their genuineness and authenticity. However, for the sake of truth, we still go forward to discuss and examine the authority of these books in this chapter. It is quite unnecessary to discuss the authority of each and every book of the Bible and we intend to examine only some of them.

Moreover, the Protestants also rejected the decision of their forbears regarding some chapters of the book of Esther. This book consists of 16 chapters. They decided that the first nine chapters and three verses from chapter 10 were essentially to to be rejected. They based their decision on the following six reasons:

1 These works were considered to be false even in the original Hebrew and Chaldaean languages which were no longer available.

2 The Jews did not acknowledge them as revealed books.

3 All the Christians have not acknowledged them as believable.

4 Jerome said that these books were not reliable and were insufficient to prove and support the doctrines of the faith.

5 Klaus has openly said that these books were recited but not in every place.

6 Eusebius specifically said in chapter 22 of his fourth book that these books have been tampered with, and changed .In particular the Second book of Maccabees.

Reasons Nos. 1, 2, and 6 are particularly to be noted by the readers as self-sufficient evidence of the dishonesty and perjury of the earlier Christians. Books which had been lost in the original and which only existed in translation were erroneously acknowledged by thousands of theologians as divine revelation. This state of affairs leads a non-Christian reader to distrust the unanimous decisions of Christian scholars of both the Catholic and the Protestant persuasions. The followers of Catholic faith still believe in these books in blind pursuance of their forebears.

Another council was held in 364 in Liodicia for the same purpose. This conference of Christian scholars and theologians not only confirmed the decision of the council of Nicaea regarding the authenticity of the Epistle of Jude but also declared that the following six books must also be added to the list of genuine and believable books: The book of Esther, The Epistle Of James, The Second Epistle of Peter, The Second and Third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. This conference pronounced their decision to the public. The book of Revelations, however, remained out of the list of the acknowledged books in both the councils.

In 397 another great conference was held called the Council of Carthage. Augustine, the great Christian scholar, was among the one hundred and twenty six learned participants. The members of this council confirmed the decisions of the two previous Councils and also added the following books to the list of the divine books : The Book of the Songs of Solomon, The Book of Tobit, The Book of Baruch, Ecclesiastics, The First and Second Books of Maccabees.

At the same time the members of this council decided that the book of Baruch was a part of the book of Jeremiah because Baruch was the deputy of Jeremiah. Therefore they did not include the name of this book separately in the list.

Three more conferences were held after this in Trullo, Florence and Trent. The members of these meetings confirmed the decision of the Council of Carthage. The last two councils, however, wrote the name of the book of Baruch separately.

After these councils nearly all the books which had been doubtful among Christians were included in the list of acknowledged books.

There are nine books in this part. The authenticity of these books has been a point of controversy among Christians. The Protestant faith, for instance, does not acknowledge the divine origin of these books, and they have discarded them from their Bible. They do not form part of the King James Version of the Bible. The collection of these nine books and five other books together called Apocrypha .

1 THE BOOK OF ESTHER

Esther was a Jewish woman who was among the captives from Jerusalem in Babylon. Ahasuerus, the king of Persia, was unhappy with his first wife and married Esther. A man, a minister of the king, had some differences with Mardochaeus, the father of the Queen Esther. He plotted to destroy the Jews. Esther convinced the king to combat this plot and saved the Jews. This book describes this event in 10 chapters.

2 THE BOOK OF BARUCH

Baruch was disciple and scribe of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 32 : 13 – 36, 36 : 4 – 32, 43 :3 – 16, 45 : 1- 3) The Protestant Bible does not include this book.

3 PART OF THE BOOK OF DANAEL

4 THE BOOK OF TOBIAS

Tobias was a Jew who had been taken to Assyria in the period of exile. The book describes a dangerous journey made by him and his son. It also includes the event of his marriage with a strange woman Sara. This book is has great literary merit.

5 THE BOOK OF JUDITH

This book is ascribed to a very brave Jewish named Judith. She saved and delivered her people from the oppression of the king of Assyria. It also includes the story of her love.

6 WISDOM OF SOLOMON

This book is ascribed to the prophet solomon. It contains wise saying of the Prophet and is similar in many ways to the Book of Proverbs.

7 ECCLESIASTICUS

This is a collection of preachings and exhortations. it is attributed to Masiah, a preacher in c. 200 BC. This book is also of great literary merit.

8 THE FIRST BOOK OF MACCABEES

This book describes the rebellion of the tribe of the Maccabees.

9 THE SECOND BOOK OF MACCBEES

This book describe the history of a short period of time and contains some unbelievable or corrupt reports.

THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

There are twenty books in the first part of the new Testament. These twenty books are believed to be genuine and authentic by the Christian.

1 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

Matthew was one of the Twelve Disciples of the prophet Jesus. This book is considered to be the oldest of the Gospels. The book begins with the genealogy of the Prophet Jesus. And describes his life and teachings up until his ascension to the heavens.

2 THE GOSPEL OF MARK

Mark was a pupil of Peter, the Disciple of the Prophet Jesus. This gospel begins with the prophecies made by previous Prophets regarding the coming of the Prophet Jesus. It describes the life of Jesus up until his ascension to heaven .It consists of 16 chapters.

3 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

Luke was a Physician and was a companion of Paul and travelled with him on his journeys (Col. 4:14, Acts 16) He died in 70 AD. His gospel begins with the birth of the Prophet John “the Baptist” (whose Qur’anic name is Yahya) and covers the life of Jesus up until his ascension to heaven. It has 24 chapters.

4 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

This book also begins with the birth of John the Baptist and describes the events from the birth of the Prophet John to the ascension of the Prophet Jesus. It consists of 21 chapters.

It should be noted here that John the son of Zebedee, the disciple of Jesus is certainly not the author of this book. Some of the Christians claim that the author of this book may be John the Elder, but this claim too is not supported by any historical evidence.

These four books are also called the four Evangels. Sometimes the word Evangel is also used for all the books of the new Testament. The word is of Greek origin and means good tidings and teaching.

5 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

It is said that this script was written by Luke to Theopheus. It includes the acts and achievements of the disciples of the Prophet Jesus after his ascension. It particularly describes the journeys of Paul until his arrival in Rome in 22AD. It has 28 chapters.

6 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS

This is a letter written by Paul to some of his Roman followers. Paul was a Jew and an enemy of the followers of Jesus in the beginnig . Some time after the ascension of Jesus to heaven he suddenly appeared and claimed to have received instructions from Jesus.

7 FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS

This is Paul`s first letter to the Corinthians and it consist mostly of teaching and injunctions regarding unity among the Christian. At that time they were involved in various disputes. Chapter 7 includes some injunctions concerning matrimonial relations. In chapter 8 the evils paganism and the Christians’ attitude towards a pagan society are discussed. The last few chapters include a discussion on atonement and the Hereafter. Chapter 16 describes the blessings of alms-giving and donation for Christianity.

8 SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL OF THE CORINTHIANS

This letter was also written to the Corinthians by Paul and contains 16 chapters. These chapters include religious instructions, guidance, and suggestions regarding the discipline of the Church. From chapter 10 to the end paul speaks of his ministerial journeys.

9 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS

Galatia was a province of Rome in the north of Asia Minor. This letter was written to the churches of Galatia in early 57 AD. Paul had heard that the people of Galatia were being influenced by another religion. In this letter he tries to prevent them from conversion.

10 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS

Ephesus was an important trading city of Asia Minor. There was a great house of worship there to the goddess Diana. Paul turned it into a great centre of Christianity in three years of great effort. (Acts 10 : 19). In this letter he gives some moral instuctions to the people.

11 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS

This letter of Paul is addressed to the people of Philippi, a city of Macedonia. This is the first city in Europe were Paul preached Christianity. He was arrested there. This letter includes his moral teachings and exhortations for unity among the Christians.

12 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS

This letter of paul is addressed to the people of Colossae, a city of Asia Minor. Paul is encouraging them to remain Christians and calls upon them to abstain from evil deeds.

13 FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE THESSALONIANS

This letter of Paul was written to the people of Thessalonica, a city of the provence of Macedonia which is a part of Greece today. He discusses, in this letter, the principles which bring about God`s pleasure. It also speaks of other subjects. It has 5 chapters.

14 SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE THESSALONIANS

This letter, containig only 3 chapters, offers, Paul`s encouragement to the Thessalonians on their good deeds and some instructions regarding their general behaviour.

15 FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE TIMOTHY

Timothy was a pupil and disciple of Paul. (Acts 14: 17, 16 : 1-3) Paul had great trust and admiration for him (Cor. 16: 10 and Phil. 2:19). The letter contains descriptions regarding rituals and ethics.

16 SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY

This second letter to Timothy speaks of certain people who had converted to other religions and also includes instructions to Timothy about preaching and also some predictions for the last ages. It has 4 chapters.

16. EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TITUS

Titus was also a companion of Paul on some of his journeys (Cal. 2: 1). Paul had great love for him (Cor. 2: 13). Paul left him in Crete so that he could preach there. This letter had 3 chapters and gives preaching instructions and details of the prerequisites of bishops.

18 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO PHILEMON

Philemon was also a companion of Paul and had travelled with him. The letter was written by Paul when he sent Onesimus to Philemon (Phil. 1: 10)

19 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER

Peter was one of the closest apostles of Jesus. The study of the New Testament shows that Paul had some differences with him in later years. The letter was addressed to the Christians who were scattered throughout the northern part of Asia Minor i.e. the people of Poutus, Galatia, Cappadocia and Bithynia. The main purpose of the letter was to encourage the readers who were facing persecution and suffering for their faith.

20 FIST LETTER OF JOHN

SECOND DIVISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

In this division of the new Testament there are seven books. The genuineness and divinity of these books is doubted and debated by the Christians. Some lines form the first letter of John are also not believed to be authentic.

21 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE HEBREWS

The Jews are also called the Hebrews. The word has an association with `Aber` a title given to the Prophet Jacob. Hebrews is also used for Christians. The letter was addressed to a group of Christians who were on the way to abandoning the Christian faith. The writer encourages them in their faith.

22 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

This letter from Peter is addressed to the early Christians. Its main concern is to combat the work of false teachers and false prophets. It also speaks of the final return of the Messiah.

23 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN

The second letter of John was written by John to the “dear Lady and her children”. According to the Christians the “lady probably stands for the local church.

24 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN

This letter was addressed to Gaius, one of the pupils of John and a church leader. The writer praises the reader for his help to other Christians, and warns against a man called Diotrephes.

25 THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES

This James is not the apostle James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John The writer is James, the son of Joseph the carpenter. He is frequently mentioned in the Book of Acts. The letter is a collection of practical instructions and emphasizes the importance of actions guided by faith.

26 THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE

Jude is a brother of the James who was one of the 12 apostles. He is mentioned in John 14 : 22. The letter was written to warn against false teachers who claimed to be believers. Jude is not the Judas who is said to have betrayed Jesus.

27 THE REVELATION

The revelation of John is a collection of visions and revelations written in symbolic language. Its main concern is to give its readers hope and encouragement in their suffering for faith.