A response to 1.2.7
Christianity's true founder, Paul, admits fabrication
The Gospel according to Paul?
In His chapter on Paul as the "originator" of Christian doctrine, mr
alKhadi makes a few statements, wich have to be examined in the cold light
of honesty , truth, common sense, and above all, scripture. These statements
are as follows:
1) Paul was a willfull liar, and contradicted his own testimony
with a sworn statement.
2)Paul changed the law of God, and thereby directly contradicted
the teaching of Jesus.
3)The doctrine that salvation from sin and hell is through the fact
that Christ died as a sin offering for the sin of humanity is an innovation
of Paul.
4)The original companions of Jesus were Muslims
5)There were doctrinal differences between Paul and the other apostles
(Peter and Barnabas)
6)There was a breach between Paul and the other apostles because
of doctrinal differences.
Quotations from the book "What did Jesus really say" are in green.
1) Paul was a willfull liar, and
contradicted his own testimony with a sworn statement.
"However, we can find in the Bible a
sworn affidavit by Paul that he is guilty of fabrication. Sound incredible?
Let us have a look"
Let us now really have a look! The verses mentioned are:
Acts 9:19-29 "And when he (Paul) had received meat,
he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples
which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues,
that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said;
Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem,
and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the
chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded
the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And
after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:
But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day
and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him
down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed
to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and
believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought
him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in
the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at
Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going
out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and
disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 26:19-21 "Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient
unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at
Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles,
that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill
me."
Apparently contradicted by:
Galatians 1:15-23 "But when it pleased God, who separated
me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son
in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred
not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which
were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto
Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and
abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save
James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold,
before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and
Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were
in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times
past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Before we continue with the longer discussion, JP Holding has
another response
to the problem above, quoted by Al-Kadhi as found in Reverend Dr. Davies'
"The First Christian".
Let us have a look at some of the statements that the author makes, and
then compare it to what the text really says. Here is one of his statements:
" Many days later, the Jews tried to kill him so he escaped
to Jerusalem."
Here we find the first gross misrepresentation of what the text actually
says: It does NOT state that Paul escaped to Jerusalem, or that he went
to Jerusalem immediately after leaving Damascus! This is what the text
really says:
"Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by
the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to
join himself to the disciples"
The text simply says that Paul escaped. The next sentence starts with "And
when Saul was come to Jerusalem..." Please note that there is NO MENTION
OF TIME ELAPSED from his escape from Damascus to his arrival in Jerusalem
! To say that he "escaped to Jerusalem. " is to add to the text.
The second text (Pauls speech to Agrippa) describes Paul's life ministry
in even broader terms: it is impossible to make any comment on the chronology
of events based on this statement. There is therefore no contradiction
between the three accounts: the facts about his trip to Arabia simply adds
detail wich was not deemed necessary in the context of the first two accounts.
"Galatians claims that after his alleged
vision, Paul "Immediately" spoke to "no flesh and blood" but rather traveled
to Arabia and then to Damascus. So he did not "straightway," if at all,
preach boldly in Damascus as claimed by Acts (How long would it take to
travel from Damascus to Arabia to Damascus? Could he go and come back "straightway"?).
"
Here is the second misrepresentation of scriptures: "Paul "Immediately"
spoke to "no flesh and blood" " The author here substitutes the word "conferred"
(or "consulted", in other translations) with "spoke" and changes the meaning
of the text. If you look at the context of Galatians, Paul is telling the
Galatians that he did not receive his message from people, but from God.
(Galaians 1:12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught
it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.") By stating that he "did not
confer", he obviously meant that he did not receive any input regarding
the content of his message from anybody but God.
The texts in Acts state that he proclaimed this message to the people
of Damascus, wich is something quite different. Again the contradiction
only exists in the fantasies of the author.
Here is another statement:
"On the other hand, Acts claims that
the first time he met the apostles was many days after his claimed vision
at which time he met ALL of the apostles. "
What does the text actually say?
"But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles"
See how the author inserted the word "ALL" to bend the meaning of the text
and produce a pseudo-contradiction? The text definitely does NOT specify
ALL of the apostles, or even wich apostles. The text in Galatians simply
adds detail, omitted in the other account.
"Notice the words "they were ALL afraid
of him." This would not be the case if Peter and James had already met
him since even if they had never mentioned him to the other apostles, still,
at the very least they themselves (Peter and James) would not fear him.
"
The author here displays some ignorance: The terms "disciple" and "apostle"
are not synonyms. The apostles were a small group of people that consisted
mainly of the close friends (the twelve) of Jesus, and also one or two
others who, like Paul, had personal experience of Jesus. A disciple is
any person who believes in Jesus, and studies his teachings. The texts
" But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
"
and
"And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to
the disciples: but they were all afraid of him..."
do not contradict each other since they refer to two different groups of
people: The disciples in general, and the apostles. ( the apostles were
obviously all discples, but since there were only a handfull of apostles
and thousands of disciples, the opposite was obviously not true.)
"The apostles did not claim to be receiving visions
from Jesus, so obviously, Paul's claims that he was receiving divine visions
from Jesus would go a long way towards drawing the followers of Jesus away
from them and to his interpretation of the message of Jesus." "As we shall
see below, he claimed to have been singled out from among all of mankind
to receive visions denied all of the apostles, and to have been allowed
through this inspiration to gain new converts "by all means.""
This is a blatant untruth!! The author is either extremely ignorant of
the scriptures or....
All the apostles saw Jesus after he died and was raised from the dead,
which is exactly what Paul also claimed to have seen, nothing more, nothing
less.
John 20: 24 "But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus,
was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord.
But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the
nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand
into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas
with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst,
and said, Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my
hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not
faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast
believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
1 Corinthians 15:1 " Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the
gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein
ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached
unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according
to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due
time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called
an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was
bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they
all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
"
Please note: Paul writes here why the Corinthians should believe him: Not
because he says so, but because of the other eyewitnesses who saw Jesus
after his death and resurrection, and he calls these witnesses by name,
so that people could look them up and and speak to them themselves. Note
that he states that most of the over 500 witnesses were still alive and
available for interrogation! He must have had some nerve to call on all
these witnesses if he knew that he was preaching a lie! If he was preaching
a lie, people would have unmasked him, and his teachings would not have
survived a day.
Verse 11 is important: Paul states here that he teaches exactly the
same as all those eyewitnesses. Remember that the new testament was not
written only by Paul, but also by other eyewitnesses who all teach exactly
the same.
"When he would differ with an apostle on a given
matter, he could not claim to have first hand knowledge of the teachings
of Jesus since he had never met him. "
Paul met Jesus on the way to Damascus. On what authority does the author
claim that he lied about it? How on earth can you explain the total turnabout
in Paul's life if something did not happen to him on the road to Damascus?
If Paul had not met Jesus on that road, it is impossible to explain his
conversion!
What about apparent inconsistencies in the different accounts of that
meeting?
Did the people with Paul hear the voice or not?
Acts 9: 7 " And the men which journeyed with him stood
speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
Acts 26:13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a
light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about
me and them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard
a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul,
why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Acts 22:9 At midday, O king, I saw in the way
a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round
9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were
afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood speechless [Acts
9:7] Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate [Acts 26:14]
The NIV-translation:
Acts 22:9- My companions saw the light, but they did not understand
the voice of him who was speaking to me.
Obviously, according to the NIV translation, there is no contradiction,
as you can hear a sound, but not the recognize it as the voice of one speaking.
So is this translation justified? Sure. The original Greek makes a distinction
between hearing a sound as a noise and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying
message. Haley notes "The Greek "akouo", like our word "hear", has two
distinct meanings, to perceive sound, and to understand". This distinction
makes sense also in light of the context. Recall the differing levels of
perception. While the men heard an unintelligible sound and saw a light,
Paul heard the voice and saw the person speaking. In fact, this type of
distinction occurs in another place: "Then a voice came from heaven, "I
have glorified it, and will glorify it again". The crowd that was there
and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to
him" [John 12:28-29].Here is a clear-cut example where a voice speaks,
but is heard by some as an unintelligible sound. As for the stance of Paul's
companions, Haley notes "the word rendered 'stood' also means to be fixed,
to be rooted to the spot. Hense, the sense may be, not that they stood
erect, but that they were rendered motionless, or fixed to the spot, by
overpowering fear". It is also entirely plausible that when they first
saw the great light, they "hit the dirt", then they could have got up off
the ground and stood there motionless.
The problem with the skeptic's approach is that it assumes these accounts
are exhaustive, step by step, accounts where each detail is conveyed. They
are not. It's not as if the author of Acts is saying "this is how it happened"
three separate times. The author does this once, and the other two times
he relays Paul speaking about it in two different contexts. Now given that
the author wasn't on the road to Damascus, and given that Paul was speaking
from memory, and given that none of these are meant to be some exhaustive,
detailed, point by point description, it is indeed wise to fit them all
together. Furthermore, the account in Acts 26 relays a speech that Paul
gave to King Agrippa which was only a synopsis. Acts 26 simply relays the
manner in which Paul chose to convey his points.
"He is trusted blindly because he claims to have
seen Jesus (pbuh) in a heavenly vision, to have been vouched for by the
apostle Barnabas, to have met and been accepted by all of the apostles,
to have preached with all the apostles boldly in the name of Jesus throughout
the land of Judaea, and as a result of this to have endured severe hardship
and persecution. However, anyone who would simply read their Bible will
find that Paul himself swears in the name of God Almighty that this is
a fabrication because Judaea had never even seen his face and had "heard
only" of his alleged conversion. Further, he never met any of the apostles
save Peter and James. "
We have already shown that the author inserted the word "all" before "apostles".
In the next sentence, the text is again changed to produce a contradiction:
"to have preached with all the apostles boldly
in the name of Jesus throughout the land of Judaea "
Just look at the real text:
"But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared
unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to
him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And
he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. "
When Paul was with the apostles, they were in Jerusalem, wich was a city
in the province of Judaea, and not Judaea itself. The people of Judaea
were not exposed directly to Paul's until some time later. Until then,
they did not know him personally.
I think it will be abundantly clear to the honest reader that the claims
that Paul was a liar are totally unfounded and mostly based on distortions
of scripture.
2)Paul changed the law of God, and thereby directly
contradicted the teaching of Jesus.
"Paul now claimed that Jesus (pbuh) wanted him
to "relax" the law in order to make it a little more palatable for new
converts, and this is when Paul began to make drastic changes to the law
of Jesus (pbuh)."
In order to answer this question, the reader must please bear with me,
so that we can gain a bit of background knowledge about the holy scriptures
that the author of " What did Jesus really say" sadly does not seem to
posess.
What the Taurat teaches about the law of God.
According to the Taurat, the law of God consists of two parts: The moral
law, and the ritual law.
The Moral law.
The moral law has to do with the essence of man: his mind and soul.(
Please do not understand me wrongly: I do not wish to say that the body
is not important!) God is primarily concerned about our relationship with
Him and our relationships with our fellow humans. We all know that material
things cannot satisfy the human soul, or make him happy. It is only in
our relationships with our parents, brothers and sisters, spouses, children
and friends, and ultimately, our Creator that our lives become meaningfull.
For this reason, God's moral law is all about relationships.
Moses received the moral law from God, after He had miraculously written
it on two tablets of stone. The first tablet concerns our relationship
with God:
Exodus 20:1 "And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto
thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the
LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon
the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the
LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou
shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant,
nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy
gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed
the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
The second tablet has to do with our relationships with our fellow humans:
Exodus 20:12 "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be
long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet
thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his
ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
God states that any transgression of his moral law will be punished by
(spiritual ) death, in other words, hell. Even in paradise, He when He
gave Adam one command to fulfill, the stated punishment for disobedience
was death:
Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die"
In the book of Leviticus, God states that He is so serious about his moral
law, that ignorance of the law is no excuse: if you break the law, you
deserve to be punished:
Leviticus 5:17 " And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things
which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though
he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity."
The ritual law .
The ritual law differs from the moral law in one very important aspect:
Where the moral law is concerned with our relationship with God and our
fellow humans, the ritual law prescribes a set of symbolic rituals that
point the believer to and remind him of Gods's moral law.
The ritual law is therefore totally dependant on the moral law. Without
the moral law the ritual the ritual law is just this: empty ritual. What
does it help me to wash myself before I pray, if there is still sin in
my heart when I pray? It is very obvious that the ritual has no power to
bring me closer to God, and indeed that is not its function.
THE FUNCTION OF THE RITUAL IS TO POINT ME TO, AND REMIND ME OF THE MORAL
LAW. IT IS THE KEEPING OF THE MORAL LAW THAT RESTORES MY RELATIONSHIP WITH
GOD!
The ritual law and purification. I invite the serious reader to delve
a bit deeper into the Taurat than did the author of "WDJRS", and read the
book of Leviticus, the third book of the Taurat. You will notice that the
largest part of the book is concerned with ritual purification from sin.
When you read the Taurat attentively, you will note the following dilemma:
God demands total obedience to his moral law. Breaking the law means punishment
in hell. Yet we know from experience that no human, (after the human race
was cast from the presence of God, read the first three chapters of Genesis)
has ever been able to remain sinless. (Even the Qur'an tells Mohammed to
ask forgiveness for his own sin, so even Mohammed was a sinner.) Does this
mean that all mankind is doomed to hell? God loved his people so much that
He provided in the Taurat rituals of purifacation from sin. Many of these
rituals were very much like Gushl: A ritual wash before prayer. The difference
is, however, that the rituals of the Taurat used blood instead of water.
Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have
given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for
it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."
The most important ritual was that of the sin offering: All of God's people
had sinned, but trough the sin offering, a person would obtain complete
forgiveness of his sins. God's law demands that a person who sins must
die, but through the sin offering, THE LIFE OF AN ANIMAL IS SUBSTITUTED
FOR THAT OF THE SINNER.
Leviticus 5:17 "And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which
are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist
it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with
thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest
shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred
and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him.
19 It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against
the LORD."
Please note the words: " and it shall be forgiven him."
The person who brought the sin offering could be absolutely certain
that his sin was forgiven, and therefore absolutely sure of salvation.
It was as if the life of the sacrificial animal was substituted for his
own! The sin offering is so important to God that the words "Sin offering"
appear about ninety (90) times in the Taurat!!
What did Jesus teach about the law of God?
Jesus summed up God's law as follows:
Matthew 22: 35 "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question,
tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first
and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Please take note: Jesus states that EVERY SINGLE LAW, wether it be a moral
or ritual law, HANGS ON THE LAW OF LOVE! Any act that keeps to the letter
of the law, but not to the law of love is SIN!
Examples:
-
The moral law: If I am physically faithfull to my wife, but I do not love
her, my faithfulness to her means nothing, I have in my heart comitted
adultery.
-
The ritual law: I must be ritually clean before I pray, but if my soul
is not clean (if there is sin in my life) , my ritual wash means nothing,
I have sinned against God.
Jesus and the moral law:
Jesus stressed the importance of keeping God's moral law: That is what
most of the famous Sermon on the Mount was about.
Matthew 5: 19 " Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the
kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall
be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Note the words: "these least commandments". Jesus was talking about THE
SPECIFIC COMMANDMENTS THAT HE EXPOUNDED IN THE VERSES FOLLOWING.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed
the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter
into the kingdom of heaven.
21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without
a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to
his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall
say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. {Raca: that is, Vain fellow}
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest
that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be
reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with
him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the
judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence,
till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after
her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from
thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish,
and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. {offend...: or, do
cause thee to offend}
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from
thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish,
and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give
her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving
for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever
shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine
oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it
is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem;
for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy
head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever
is more than these cometh of evil.
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat,
let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of
thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for
he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain
on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not
even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?
do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven
is perfect."
In these verses, Jesus was not talking about the ritual law, he was talking
of the moral law! There is not one single ritual described here.
Please take note: Jesus teaches that the moral law of God demands absolute
perfection ! Anything less is not acceptable to God. There is NO COMPROMISE!
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect."
Jesus and the ritual law.
Jesus was absolutely uncompromising in his adherance to the law of
Love. What he preached, he practised. Sometimes it would seem to people
who looked at the outer appearance only that he was breaking the Law. What
Jesus taught through his deeds, however, was that where the law of God
was concerned, appearances were nothing, and love incarnated in deeds was
the whole essence of the law.
Matthew 12:1 "At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the
corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of
corn, and to eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples
do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was
an hungred, and they that were with him;
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread,
which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him,
but only for the priests?
5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the
priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day."
To all outward appearances, Jesus breaks the law of the Sabbath. Does this
mean that the man who said that " Not one jot or tittle of the law shall
pass away" is not practising what he preaches? Not at all: Jesus is obedient
to the law of Love, in wich light the law of the Sabbath is to be interpreted:
His friends are hungry, so he gives them something to eat.
Matthew 12:9 " And when he was departed thence, he went into their
synagogue:
10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they
asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they
might accuse him.
11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall
have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not
lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful
to do well on the sabbath days.
13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched
it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how
they might destroy him.
15 But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great
multitudes followed him, and he healed them all."
Jesus teaches the same lesson here: All laws are derived from the law of
love, and therefore only obeyed as far as it obeyes the law of love. The
Pharisees were unmasked by Jesus: Although they were extremely diligent
in keeping the letter of the law, they did not love. Everything they did
meant nothing, it was empty!
Matthew 23:1 "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;
but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind
heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders;
but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad
their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, {phylacteries:
pieces of parchment containing sentences of the law}
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the
synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ;
and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father,
which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall
humble himself shall be exalted.
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut
up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves,
neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows'
houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive
the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass
sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold
more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear
by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of
the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple
that sanctifieth the gold?
18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever
sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar
that sanctifieth the gift?
20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by
all things thereon.
21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him
that dwelleth therein.
22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God,
and by him that sitteth thereon.
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe
of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of
the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not
to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean
the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of
extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup
and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like
unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are
within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within
ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build
the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not
have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children
of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation
of hell?" Let me repeat these important words of Jesus:
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean
the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of
extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup
and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Ritual is concerned with the outside of the cup, the law of love is concerned
with its contents. Jesus says that when the inside is clean, the outside
will take care of itself.
Mark 7: 1 " Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain
of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that
is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands
oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. {oft: or, diligently:
in the original, with the fist: Theophylact, up to the elbow}
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not.
And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the
washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples
according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
The disciples were ritually unpure when they ate: To all outward appearances
they broke the ritual law! Yet Jesus' answer is that they are not breaking
the law!
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you
hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments
of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of
men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye
do. Please note: "For laying aside the commandment of God" : One commandment,
that of love.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God,
that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth
father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban,
that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which
ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them,
Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: The following is extremely
important, as it sums up most of Jesus' teaching about the law.
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can
defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile
the man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples
asked him concerning the parable.
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do
ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man,
it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and
goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the
man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts,
adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil
eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."
In Jesus' own words: The outward appearance of obedience to the ritual
law is not important! It is adhering to the law of love toward man and
God that is important.
JESUS THOUGHT NOTHING OF APPEARING TO BREAK RITUAL LAWS OUTWARDLY, BUT
HE WAS ABSOLUTELY UNCOMPROMISING IN HIS ADHERANCE TO AND OBEDIENCE OF THE
MORAL LAW OF LOVE!!
The reason for this has already been stated: The object of ritual law
or law of outward appearance is only to remind us of and focus us on the
moral law of love. Apart from that, it means nothing. If the law of love
is adhered to, ritual is not necessary to get the outward appearances right.
Jesus and the ritual law of sacrifice.
What did Jesus teach about the ritual law of sin offering? The foundation
of all ritual law in the Taurat was ritual purification, mainly by blood.
To refresh our reader's memory:
Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have
given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for
it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."
Leviticus 5:17 "And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which
are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist
it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with
thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest
shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred
and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him.
19 It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against
the LORD."
When Jesus ate with his companions the night before he was murdered on
the cross, he said the following:
Matthew 26:26 "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed
it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this
is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,
Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many
for the remission of sins."
Jesus identifies himself unequivocally with the sin offering, or rather,
as the Sin Offering.
In the same way that ritual purity points the believer to moral purity
(the law of love), the ritual of sin offering (the sacrifice of an animal
to substitute for the life of the believer, and thereby atoning for sin)
pointed the believers of the Taurat to the Perfect Sacrifice that God would
provide, to atone for the sin of the world. The rituals were audio-visual
reminders of God's love for mankind (the sin-offering), and His demand
for our love in return.(other rituals of purity) This is what Jesus meant
when he said:
Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Jesus fulfilled the moral law: He is the only person in history who is
totally without sin. (The Qur'an agrees to this).
JESUS ALSO FULFILLED THE RITUAL LAW: THE SACRIFICE OF AN ANIMAL IN SIN
OFFERING POINTED THE WAY TO THE PERFECT SACRIFICE THAT GOD WOULD PROVIDE.
The ritual law has therefore fulfilled it's purpose in Jesus: Once the
destination is reached, the map is not needed any more!
Pauls teaching regarding the law.
Paul and the moral law.
1 Corinthians 13:1 "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,
and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries,
and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove
mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give
my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth
not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily
provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth
all things.
8 Love never faileth...
Romans 13:8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that
loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou
shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet;
and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this
saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling
of the law."
| Paul: "...therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." |
Jesus: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first
and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and
the prophets." |
The same uncompromising doctrine of moral law that Jesus taught was taught
by Paul!
Paul and the ritual law.
For Paul, as for Jesus, ritual was merely a pointer to the moral law.
Outward appearance was only important in sofar it said something about
the inner state of the soul.
Paul: Romans 2:28 " For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly;
neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that
of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not
of men, but of God." |
Jesus: " There is nothing from without a man, that entering
into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are
they that defile the man." |
Paul seemingly disobeyed the law of circumcision, but in reality
obeyed, because he was faithfull to the law of love. Jesus seemingly disobeyed
the laws of the Sabbath and that of ritual purity, but in reality obeyed,
because he was faithfull to the law of love. If Paul seemed to "relax"
the ritual law it was because he followed the example of Jesus!
For Paul, as for Jesus, any ritual that added unnecessary burden or
bondage to believers without aiding them in the law of love could be discarded:
Paul: Galatians 2:3 "But neither Titus, who was with me, being
a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came
in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they
might bring us into bondage..." |
Jesus: Matthew 23: 4 "For they bind heavy burdens and
grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves
will not move them with one of their fingers." |
Paul was talking here about people who wanted to burden believers by forcing
them to be circumcised. Jesus accused the Pharisees of forcing people to
obey ritual laws that did not bring them closer to God. Forcing people
to adhere to ritual laws that no longer fulfilled the objective it was
designed for was regarded as sin by both Jesus and Paul!
A modern day parallel would be to force people to pray in a language
they don't understand.
What does Paul call the "Curse of the law"?
Paul simply states that because God made a law, we were all condemmed
under that law, since all mankind has sinned. It is not the law that is
bad, it is the breaking of the law that causes the condemnation. Thank
God for the sin offering!
We see that it is only by creative editing of scriptures that one can
come to the conclusion that Paul contradicted Jesus in his doctrine of
the Law, or that he changed the law of Jesus.
3)The doctrine that salvation from sin and hell is
through the fact that Christ died as a sin offering for the sin of humanity
is an innovation of Paul.
"If by Christianity we understand faith in Christ
as the heavenly Son of God, ... that he might make propitiation for men's
sins by his own blood upon the cross, who was then awakened from death
and raised to the right hand of God, ...- if this is Christianity, then
such Christianity was founded by St. Paul and not by our Lord"
The basic premise of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died as a substitute
in our place, that he took the punishment that we should have received
on him. He is our sin offering.
Since this core doctrine of Christianity is denied by Islam, and since
the Quran endorses the Bible, Muslims have always tried to prove that this
doctrine was an innovation of Paul, and that the other prophets of the
Taurat and Zabur, and Jesus did not teach it.
It is a sad fact, however that Islamic "scholars" prey on the ignorance
of Muslims about the content of the pre-Islamic scriptures in order to
sell them their propaganda. Everyone with some knowledge of the Taurat,
Zabur and Prophetic writings knows that belief in the Substitution and
Sin Offering is as old as belief in Yahwe (the Hebrew name for God) itself.
We will now, only very briefly, show that the Substitution was the basic
doctrine of salvation of all prophets preceding Paul, including Jesus.
So let's take a quick tour of the Taurat, Zabur and Injeel and the concept
of substitution.
Please forgive us the repetition of some facts: It is done because of
their importance!
Ibrahim.
He is propably one of the best known prophets because God ordered him
to do the unthinkable: to sacrifice his son.
Important aspects of Ibrahim's sacrifice:
---God made a covenant with Ibrahim, that through
the offspring of his son Isaac he would be
the father of many nations. Because God is
perfect, we know that he would keep his
covenant!
---God commanded Ibrahim to slaughter his
son Isaac. Does this mean that he was about to
break his covenant?
---When God, who is the Creator of the universe,
commands something, it must be done. Isaac
was already as good as dead!!
---When Ibrahim lifted his hand to kill his
son, God intervened and substituted the life of a ram
for the life of Ibrahim's son.
---It was through the substitution of the
life of an animal for the life of the son that
God's covenant with Ibrahim was fulfilled.
If there was no substitution the covenant
would have been broken!!
The passover lamb
Remember when Musa and Imran (Moses and Aaron) wanted to free the Israelites
from slavery in
Egypt, and Pharao refused to let them go? God decided to play hardball
with this king who only
thought about his own pocket, and how he could exploit God's people
to fill it.
Exodus 11:4 "And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will
I go out into the midst
of Egypt:
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn
of Pharaoh that sitteth upon
his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind
the mill; and all the firstborn of
beasts.
6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt,
such as there was none like it, nor
shall be like it any more.
7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his
tongue, against man or beast: that
ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians
and Israel.
8 And all these thy servants shall come down unto me, and bow down
themselves unto me, saying,
Get thee out, and all the people that follow thee: and after that I
will go out. And he went out from
Pharaoh in a great anger. "
God commanded that every Israelite household should slaughter a lamb
without blemish, and that
the blood of the lamb should be painted on the doorposts. Where ever
there was blood on the
door, the angel of death would not kill the firstborn in that house.
Exodus 12:12 " For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night,
and will smite all the firstborn in
the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of
Egypt I will execute judgment: I
am the LORD.
13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where
ye are: and when I see the
blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to
destroy you, when I smite the
land of Egypt.
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep
it a feast to the LORD
throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance
for ever."
The substitution of the life of the passover
lamb for the lives of God's people was so
important to Him that He commanded it to be
commerorated as a holiday for ever. The
passover became one of the most important
festivals of the Jewish religious calender.
It was on the night before God saved them
from slavery in Egypt that they sacrificed the first
Passover lamb. Through the centuries the Passover
has been the symbol of God's salvation of
His people.
The sin offering
Musa and his people fled Egypt, but before they could enter into Palestine
(the promised land), God
wanted them to know how they should live. So while they were camped
at the foot of a high
mountain, God called Musa up the mountain and gave him the law.As discussed
before, the punishment for sin is spiritual death (HELL). God's law demands
it. But God provided a way for atonement through the substitution of the
life of an animal for the life of the sinner.
Although Islam denies this, the doctrine of the sin offering is the
best documented cultic law in the history of the Jewish people and it is
proven by archaeology that this was the focal point of all the activities
that took place in the temple in Jerusalem! There is no way that this doctrine
could have been
inserted into the Taurat at a later stage since the whole of the Taurat,
the historical books in the Bible and the prophets, as well as archaeology
support it.
Leviticus 5:17 "And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which
are forbidden to be done
by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty,
and shall bear his iniquity.
18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with
thy estimation, for a trespass
offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for
him concerning his ignorance
wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him.
19 It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against
the LORD. "
Please note:
Because God is Holy, He demands complete sinlessness in His law. That
is the only standard that is acceptable to Him. That is why He punishes
even those sins we do unintentionally and unknowingly. Poison still
kills even if the person who takes it is unaware that it is poison! In
the same fashion sin seperates us from God even if we are unaware of the
sin. After Adam's fall in paradise, mankind is seperated from God,
and therefore unable to attain to the law's standard of complete sinlessness.
What about salvation through keeping the law?
IT IS VERY OBVIOUS THROUGHOUT THE TAURAT THAT NO ONE IS CONSIDERED
SINLESS BY GOD. Therefore, although it is theoretically possible to go
to heaven by never breaking the law, the reality of life is that no one
has ever lived a life without sin .
THERE COULD BE NO SALVATION BY KEEPING THE LAW, SIMPLY BECAUSE NO ONE
COULD KEEP IT!
God, in His Love, provided the sin offering as a substitute for the
life of the person who sinned, to fulfill the demand of the law.
THE PEOPLE OF MUSA'S TIME WERE NOT SAVED BY GOOD WORKS, BUT BY FAITH
IN GOD THROUGH THE RITUAL OF THE SIN OFFERING.
BECAUSE THEY WERE SAVED BECAUSE OF GOD'S LOVE FOR THEM AND NOT BECAUSE
OF THEIR GOOD WORKS, AND BECAUSE GOD SAID SO ("and it shall be forgiven
him"), THEY HAD TOTAL ASSURANCE OF SALVATION.
This is in contrast with what Islam teaches: That one can never
know.
Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have
given it to you upon the altar to
make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an
atonement for the soul."
Just as Islam is based on five pillars, one could say that two of the
most important pillars of the religion of the all prophets of God up to
Jesus were the Passover and the Sin Offering!
Please note that this has nothing to do with "appeasing an angry God
with blood" as Muslims so often alledge. God is almighty, selfsufficient,
does not need anything from us, and definitely does not derive pleasure
from the shedding of blood! The sin offering does emphasize in what extremely
severe light God regards sin!!!
Dawud and the Zabur
It is all too obvious to anyone that an animal (or even another person,
for that matter) cannot really substitute for the life of a human. The
prophet Dawud knew this, and under God's inspiration said the following:
Psalm (Zabur) 49: 7 "None of them can by any means redeem his brother,
nor give to God a
ransom for him:
8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for
ever:)
9 That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption...
14 ... Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them;
and the upright shall have
dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in
the grave from their dwelling.
15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he
shall receive me.
The word "redeem" means to buy back: David says that God would pay the
price that is demanded by His law to save him from the grave (hell).
Isiah 53
The prophet Isiah lived about 700 years before Jesus and gave God's
people a concrete answer to their question on how God would pay the price
of their redemption. When one first reads this chapter, one's first instinct
is that this was written by Christians and inserted into the Bible later.
Please remember that this chapter is word for word the same in the scriptures
of modern Judaism, who deny that Jesus is the Messiah. The oldest available
manuscript of this chapter comes from the Qumran scrolls and date from
before the time of Jesus.
13 "Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and
extolled, and be very high.
14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than
any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths
at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that
which they had not heard shall they consider.
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD
revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root
out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall
see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted
with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised,
and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we
did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our
iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes
we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his
own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth:
he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers
is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare
his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the
transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;
because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief:
when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed,
he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in
his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:
by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall
bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall
divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto
death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin
of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
The following points are important:
---The servant is a person, not an animal as
Isiah was used to sacrifice as sin offering.
---The servant is without sin, but took the
sin of many on him. (Remember the Passover lamb had to be without
blemish?)
---The servant dies (is sacrificed), and rises
again from the dead.
It is obvious by now, that the substitution of an animal for a person
was not enough, but that God would provide the perfect sacrifice. The animal
sacrifice was merely a pointer to the real Sacrifice that would come!
Yahyah ibn Zakariyah
Prophet John the Baptist was a contemporary of Messiah Jesus. One day
while he was preaching , he saw Jesus coming towards him and said:
John 1: 29 "The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, Behold
the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me comes a man which is preferred
before me: for he was before me."
Jesus the Messiah
The night before his crucifixion, Jesus celebrated the passover with
his disciples. This is what he told them:
Matthew 26:26 "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed
it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this
is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,
Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament (or covenant), which is
shed for many for the remission of sins.
The next day Jesus was crucified, died, was buried and rose from death
on the third day.
CAN ONE STILL HONESTLY SUGGEST THAT PAUL INVENTED THE DOCTRINE OF SUBSTITUTION?
Decide for yourself!
4)The original companions of Jesus were Muslims
"Even with all of this, the Gospel of Barnabas
(see chapter seven) has managed to escape this
campaign of destruction of the Gospels and is
available today. It confirms all that we have said and
what the Qur'an has been saying for centuries.
It also presents Barnabas' response to Paul's claims
and his account of what truly happened at the
crossand how Jesus (pbuh) was not forsaken by God
to the Jews, but was raised by God, and Judas
the traitor was made to look like Jesus (pbuh) and
was taken in his place. Barnabas, of course,
accompanied Jesus (pbuh) and was an eye-witness to
his mission. Paul was not."
Islam teaches about Jesus that
---He was a normal man, just like any other
---He was born of a virgin
---He was a prophet of God
---He did not die, but was raised to heaven
According to a publication called "Kitaabul Imaan" any other doctrine
about Jesus is KUFR. To believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again
on the third day is KUFR.
To validate the claim that the first followers of Jesus were Muslims,
one must be able to prove that there existed a group of people at that
time who believed exactly this about Jesus.
It would be possible to prove that such a group existed either by their
own writings or by somebody elses refutations of their doctrines. If you
read the new testament, there is no mention of or refutation of a doctrine
that Jesus was a normal man who did not die but was taken up alive in heaven.
Paul goes out of his way, however to refute other heresies about Jesus,
for instance that he was not taken up in heaven at all. There is not a
shred of evidence that a group of people existed who taught that Jesus
did not die at all but was taken up to heaven alive.
As we will have to point out repeatedly, the Gospel of Barnabas is a
pathetic fraud that is discussed in a seperate chapter.
The facts are as follows:
The Christians Paul persecuted believed that Jesus died and was resurrected:
Peter, the leader of the Companions of Jesus:
May we suggest to our readres that they read the second chapter
of the Acts of the apostles: Peter gave a speech, telling the people of
Jerusalem (WHO WERE ALL WITNESSES TO THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS)
about Jesus.
Acts 2:22 " Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth,
a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which
God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel
and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified
and slain
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted,
and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath
shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."
Because of these words, over three thousand people believed in him! The
earliest Christians became Cristians because of the death and resurrection
of Jesus!
Philip, one of the companions of Jesus.
The following incident happend before Paul was converted:
Acts 8:26 "And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip,
saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from
Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia,
an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who
had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read
Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and
join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read
the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should
guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this,
He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his
shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away:
and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray
thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the
same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto
a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder
me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine
heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and
they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he
baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the
Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more:
and he went on his way rejoicing.
40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through
he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea."
Please note that the Ethiopian was reading from Isiah 53, wich we have
already quoted.
"for his life is taken from the earth.":
The servant of Isiah's prophecy dies.
The next verses after the quoted ones say:
"when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall
see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall
prosper in his hand. "
and
"Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall
divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto
death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin
of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
Even before Paul came along, Philip proved from the Prophetic Scriptures
written by Isiah some 700 years before that Jesus died as a sacrifice for
sin and was raised again from the dead.
Was he a Muslim?
Stephen.
Stephen was the first Christian martyr, and Paul sanctioned his murder.
Here he witnesses to a crowd of Jews who are about to kill him:
Acts 7:52 "Which of the prophets have not your fathers
persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming
of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53 Who have received the law by the disposition of
angels, and have not kept it.
54 When they heard these things, they were cut to
the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up
stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on
the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and
the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped
their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him:
and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose
name was Saul.
59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and
saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice,
Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell
asleep."
Please note the words: "...the Just One; of whom ye have been now the
betrayers and murderers..." . Speaking of Jesus, it is obvious that he
believed that Jesus was murdered, that he died. And then he saw the
resurrected Jesus in heaven just before he died.
Was he a Muslim?
Just before he died, he prayed to Jesus to forgive his murderers their
sin.
Would a Muslim pray to Jesus?
John, the beloved companion of Jesus:
The "Gospel of John" was dictated by John, the closest friend Jesus
had when he was on earth:
John 21:24 "This is the disciple which testifieth of these
things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true."
The following is a verse from the first epistle of John, stressing the
fact that he was an eye witness:
1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which
we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon,
and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was revealed, and we have seen it,
and bear witness, and show to you that eternal life, which was with the
Father, and was revealed to us)
3 That which we have seen and heard we declare to
you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship
is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things we write to you, that your joy
may be full."
This is what Jesus' closest companion taught about him:
John 3: 14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn
the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but
he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed
in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
Was John a Muslim?
Apart from the fraudulent "Gospel of Barnabas" the author has
not advanced one single historical source to prove that the first followers
of Jesus believed that Jesus did not die but was taken up in heaven alive.
Not one of the many well preserved heretical scriptures from the first
century support such a theory. We can only work with the facts (scriptures)
available, anything else is conjecture. (There were Gnostic groups (Like
that of Basilides) who taught that Jesus did not die on the cross. They
did this because they denied his humanity, and because a god cannot die,
they denied his death. They could not be Muslims!)
5)There were doctrinal differences between Paul and
the other apostles (Peter and Barnabas), and
6)There was a breach between Paul and the other apostles
because of doctrinal differences.
"Paul decided that his visions were sufficient
authority to contradict the teachings of the apostles and
consider them hypocrites. Even Barnabas, the
apostle who traveled with Paul teaching him and
preaching to the Jews, who was willing to accept
this persecutor of Christians claims of conversion
at face value, and the man who single handedly
convinced all of the apostles to accept this same
persecutor of Christians is now considered by
Paul a hypocrite and less able to understand the
religion of Jesus (pbuh) than himself. "
Galatians 2:9 "And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed
to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to
me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the
heathen, and they unto the circumcision (be missionaries to the Jews)."
Paul states here that the leaders of Jesus` followers approved of him and
comissioned him to be a missionary to the gentiles.
The apostolic conference:
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught
the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses,
ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension
and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and
certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and
elders about this question.
3 And being brought on their way by the church, they
passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles:
and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were
received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared
all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees
which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to
command them to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to
consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose
up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while
ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear
the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness,
giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying
their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke
upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able
to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave
audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God
had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Please note the following:
---Paul and Barnabas "had no small dissension and disputation with
them" : Paul and Barnabas fought together against the people who
taught that faith in the sin offering of Christ was not enough but that
one had to be circumcised to be saved.
---Peter, the leader of the companions of Jesus defended Paul's
doctrine about the circumcision.
---Among the people present at the meeting were the apostles, who were
the original companions of Jesus.
Paul and the teachings of Peter
1 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there
be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in
the same mind and in the same judgment. {divisions: Gr. schisms}
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren,
by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among
you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I
am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas (Peter); and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you?
or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Paul clearly states that there should be no schism between students
of him and Peter, since they are one in Christ. Instead of countering and
debunking the teachings of Peter, he endorses it!
What then was the infamous argument about? Definitely not doctrine!
(The nature of Jesus, the fact that he did die on the cross, his resurrection
or his role as sin offering to the world.) According to Paul, Peter
was not completely honest in his actions towards the Jewish Christians.
Although Peter also believed that the ritual law of the old covenant was
not necessary to become a Christian, and did not practise the ritual law
himself when he was with believers from non-Jewish background, he was reluctant
to admit it to a group of Jewish believers who felt that it was still necessary.
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood
him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did
eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated
himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision (the Jewish Christians).
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him;
insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly
according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all,
If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do
the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of
the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works
of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in
Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not
by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified."
The argument was resolved in a brotherly fashion, there and then.
Did Paul consider him a hypocryte? Paul said that his action in this
instance was hypocritical. He definitely did not claim that hipocricy was
a significant trait of Peter's caracter! To say that Paul said so is to
lay words in his mouth. Beware of giving false witness!!
Barnabas:
We know from all available data that Paul and Barnabas were buddies
in the mission field. They did everything together, until they disagreed
about the suitability of a travelling companion, and each went a different
way.
Acts 13:2 "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted,
the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto
I have called them."
Acts 13:7 "Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius
Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to
hear the word of God."
Acts 15:12 "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave
audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God
had wrought among the Gentiles by them."
Acts 15:35 "Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch,
teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let
us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached
the word of the Lord, and see how they do.
37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John,
whose surname was Mark.
38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them,
who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
39 And the contention was so sharp between them,
that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark,
and sailed unto Cyprus;
40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended
by the brethren unto the grace of God."
To say that the parting of ways was because of doctrinal differences is
either to be dishonest in the extreme or to be absolutely blinded by prejudice,
since everyting is crystal clear in the text.
But what about the "Gospel of Barnabas" ?
There are two writings attributed to Barnabas: The epistle of "Barnabas"
dates from the second century. The author of this document is unknown (it
was possibly someone else called Barnabas) but the doctrines in it are
basically that of orthodox Christianity.
The "Gospel of Barnabas" is a forgery dating from the middle ages, written
with a specific political agenda in mind. It has been exposed as a definite
fraud, and it is not to their credit that some people still propagate it
as authentic.
What about the doctines that Paul so actively preach against in the
book of Galatians?
The doctines Paul opposed stated that although Jesus died for the sins
of mankind, it was not enough. To be saved one had to be circumcised.
Take note of the following:
---Although Paul says that Peter, out of fear for some people, at one
occasion acted against the gospel, he emphasises strongly that this was
NOT wat Peter usually taught. In fact, at another occasion Peter defended
Pauls teaching on the circumcision! Peter , Barnabas, and the other apostles
were NOT the false prophets!
---In refuting these teachings Paul states the following:
Galatians :21 :"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for
if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
Pauls says: If man could be sinless by keeping the law, the sin offering
would not be necessary: Christ would have died in vain.
This proves that the people who taught that circumcision was essential
for salvation also taught that Christ died!
They could therefore not be Muslims!!
Conclusion:
We think it is unnecessary to answer every allegation that the author
makes in this attack on Paul and the basic tenets of Christianity in this
chapter. What has been said above should prove our point abundantly.
Let us just summarize in conclusion:
The allegation that Paul is a liar is based on carefull distortion
of scripture, and in one case, the authors lack of knowledge of Greek.
(We do not hold this against him, but he could have asked anybody)
The allegation that Paul contradicted the law of Jesus is not true,
on the basis that Jesus himself taught that the letter of the ritual law
was not important, but that there was no compromise allowed where the law
of love was concerned. This is exactly what Paul taught. We deplore the
author's silence about the passages where Jesus apparantly broke the ritual
law, in order to teach important spiritual truths.
The allegation that Paul invented the doctrine of atonement for sin
by sin offering or substitution is based on gross ignorance of the scriptures.
The allegation that the original followers of Jesus were Muslims is
fantasy, with no historical evidence what so ever. Wishfull thinking provides
no proof. All available historical data indicate that the companions of
Jesus taught that he died on the cross as a sin offering, and was resurrected
from the dead on the third day.
We have seen that it is wrong to alledge that Paul and Peter differed
doctrinally, since Paul openly endorsed Peter's teachings. Their difference
was not one of opinion, but based on Peters actions at one occasion. We
deplore the way the author puts words in Pauls mouth. Acting in a hypocritical
way on one occasion does not mean that that is a usual trait of the person's
caracter.
In the same way the scriptures state clearly that Paul and Barnabas
parted ways because they disagreed about a travelling companion. To say
that they parted because of doctrinal differences is a blatant untruth.
The truth is clear to anyone who can read!
The Rebuttal to "What Did Jesus Really Say?"
Answering Islam Home Page