Tag Archives: Paul

Refutation of the Christian Lie that “Paul is a Prophet in Qur’an”

image

by Ebrahim Saifuddin

The Claim

In all their desperation Christian missionaries have now started to claim that according to the Quran Paul was a prophet of God. Their conclusions are based on conjectures and the misrepresentation of the text of the Qur’an. Simply put, there is not a single place in the Qur’an which even mentions the name “Paul” let alone mentioning him to be a prophet of God.

To make such claims the Christian missionaries run to Tafsir Ibn Kathir. They read out the tafsir by Ibn Kathir regarding the 14th ayah (Verse) of the 36th Surah (Chapter) of the Quran.

Verse under Question:

36:14

إِذْ أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَيْهِمُ اثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ فَقَالُوا إِنَّا إِلَيْكُم مُّرْسَلُونَ

When We (first) sent to them two apostles, they rejected them: But We strengthened them with a third: they said, “Truly, we have been sent on a mission to you.”  – [Translation: Abdullah Yusuf Ali]

Christian missionaries say that Ibn Kathir says in his Tafsir of the Quran that this verse refers to Paul of Tarsus and thus Paul (Bulus) is one of the Messengers of God according to Islam.

Let’s see whether Ibn Kathir makes such a claim.

Ibn Kathir writes:

“The names of the first two Messengers were Sham`un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch (Antakiyah).”

But the question is this Ibn Kathir’s view?

No. This saying is attributed to: Shu`ayb Al-Jaba’i

Ibn Kathir is quoting Shu`ayb Al-Jaba’i. Ibn Kathir has also quoted interpretations of different people as well. He says that according to Ibn Ishaq the names of these three are:

(i) Sadiq

(ii) Saduq

(iii) Shalum

Note: No Bulus (i.e. Paul) mentioned here.

Later on Ibn Kathir in his tafsir refutes this and says that according to the proceeding Qur’anic verses the people were destroyed. Historically there is no evidence that the city of Antioch faced such destruction and thus this cannot even be about the city of Antioch.

Analyzing Some Tafsirs

Now let’s check Qurtubi whom these missionaries have labeled to be “The Number 1 Muslim Imam”.

Qurtubi:

“Tabari mentions: Sadiq Saduq Shalum

Someone else: Shamoun Yuhanna

Al Naqash said: Saman and Yahya – Did not mention Sadiq and Saduq.

According to Qurtubi ‘Eesa Masih (alayhissalaam) (Jesus) sent the first two as messengers to the king of Antioch. To him they said “We are disciples of ‘Eesa”. The king jailed them and whipped them. This news reached ‘Eesa (alayhissalaam) and he sent a third messenger ‘Shamoun Al-Safa’.”

Note: Qurtubi does not mention any Paul (Bulus) either.

We will now check another tafsir

Tafsir Ibn Abbas:

(When We sent unto them twain) two apostles: Simon the Canaanite and Thomas, (and they denied them both, so We reinforced them with a third) We strengthened them with Simon Peter who confirmed the message conveyed by the other two apostles, (and they said; Lo! we have been sent unto you.

Note: No Paul mentioned over there either.

What we have done here is basically refuted the idea that the Tafsirs unanimously agree that one of the three people sent as messengers was Paul. There is a difference of opinion among the scholars of tafsir which is evidence that neither the Qur’an mentions the name of Paul as one of the messengers nor did Prophet Muhammad ever mention his name with regards to this verse.

Does The Verse Really Talk About Messengers (Rasul)?

Now we will go on to refute the idea that the verse is talking of a Rasul of Allah.

The Arabic text of the Qur’an clearly shows the word used for these three to be “mursaloon”. Mursaloon which is the plural of mursal means “sent one”. This word has been highlighted in the concerned verse above.

Rasul (pl. rusul) in Islam has a specific definition.

Generally the word means:ambassador, messenger, envoy, emissary, forerunner, apostle, and courier.

Mursal (pl. mursaloon) means: sent one

This word, in the Qur’an can or can not refer to a prophet of Allah. For example in the Quran we see the following verse:

وَإِنِّي مُرْسِلَةٌ إِلَيْهِم بِهَدِيَّةٍ فَنَاظِرَةٌ بِمَ يَرْجِعُ الْمُرْسَلُونَ

But indeed, I will send to them a gift and see with what [reply] the messengers will return. – [Quran 27:35]

The same word “mursaloon” has been used. So does this mean that the messengers that Bilqis sent were RUSUL?

Another verse of the Quran:

فَلَمَّا جَاء آلَ لُوطٍالْمُرْسَلُونَ

At length when the messengers arrived among the adherents of Lut – [Quran 15:61]

Again the same word “mursaloon” is used. Does this mean that the angels which came to Lut were RUSUL?

Of course the answer to both the questions is “No”. None of them was a rasul but they were only ‘sent ones’. This word  “mursaloon” simply means a messenger and not necessarily RasulAllah

Further Deception by Christian Missionaries

The deceiving nature of these certain Christian missionaries is actually laughable. To support their claim they try to quote another verse from the Qur’an. The translation of that verse is given below:

Muhammad is no more than a Messenger  – [Quran 3:144]

And they say that look Muhammad was also only a messenger like the other three. But if we read the verse of the Qur’an we see that the word used here is “rasul” and not the general term“mursaloon”. A general term for messenger was used for the three people in 36:14 but for Prophet Muhammad the special word“rasul” has been used in this verse.

Further the verse continues:

Many Were the messengers that passed away before him. – [Qur’an 3:144]

This part of the verse talks about the previous rusul of Allah. And in the Arabic text, for them, again the word “rasul” is used and not the common word mursaloon.

Hence clearly the three that the Quran is talking about in Surah Yasin (36) verse 14 were not “rasul” but messengers (the sent ones) sent by Jesus on the directive of Allah.

Let’s give an example to make things clearer. If Allah informs Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to send Omar (radhiyallahu anhu) to Persia for Da’wah does that not mean that Omar (radhiyallahu anhu) is a messenger (mursaloon)? Of course he is a messenger! But it can never mean that he is a rasul!

Similarly these three were not rasul but were only messengers sent by ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) (on the directives of Allah.

Further Evidence

For more evidence we have to read Surah 36 verse 16:

They said: “Our Lord doth know that we have been sent on a mission to you:– [Qur’an 36:16]

This is a significant verse. These three supposed rasul of God go to a city and there they do not say ‘Our Lord sent us on a mission’ but rather say ‘Our Lord knows that we have been sent.’

Clearly when a Rasul of Allah (i.e. Jesus in this case) sends a messenger (i.e. Paul, Shamoun, Yuhanna or any of the other names mentioned by scholars in this case) to another city, God knows that they have been sent. It does not mean that God actually chose them to be rasul and sent them.

The Last Blow

It has clearly been refuted that according to the Qur’an or the Tafsir Paul was a Rasul of Allah. For the final blow to the deception which the Christian missionaries try to create let us take a look at a hadith of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

There is a clear hadith from the mouth of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam):

Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Apostle saying, “I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus).” – [Sahih Bukhari Vol.4, Book 55, #651] This hadith has also been recorded in Sahih Muslim and Abu Dawud.

Conclusion

The whole idea of Paul being a rasul of God has been defeated in this article.

1) The verse 36:14 does not talk about a rasul but only about mursaloon.

2) Whether the verse in question refers to Paul or not is a matter of interpretation and clearly there are many scholars who don’t even mention Paul’s name in their tafsir of this verse.

3) Ibn Kathir himself refutes the claim of the city being Antioch.

4) According to Sahih Hadith it is clear that between ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) there has been no prophet and hence Paul could have never been a prophet.

5) Even if, for argument’s sake, we would say that according to Ibn Kathir Paul is a Rasul of God, no tafsir can supercede the authentic hadith. This would be Ibn Kathir’s interpretation and Ibn Kathir was a man and not a rasul of God hence his word can never be taken over the word of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Where Did The Doctrine of Trinity Come From??

The three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – all purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as “tawhid” in Islam, this concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses (Musa alayhissalaam) in a Biblical passage known as the “Shema,” or the Jewish creed of faith:
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)

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

«”Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again: “And your God is One God: There is no god worthy of worship but He, …” (The Qur’an 2:163)

Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century A.D. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and without the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – in one divine being.

If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery
language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter:

…we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity… for there is
one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one… they are not three gods, but one God… the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal… he therefore that will be save must thus think of the Trinity…” (excerpts from the Athanasian Creed)

Let’s put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father + one person, God the Son + one person, God the Holy Ghost = one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?

It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.

How did such a confusing doctrine get its start??

TRINITY IN THE BIBLE

References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.

In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and
preach to all nations. While the “Great Commission” does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase “…baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text – that is, not the actual words of Jesus – as can be seen by two factors:

1) Baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and

2) The “Great Commission” was found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost – see Mark 16:15.

The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of I John 5:7, Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase “…there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” is definitely a “later addition” to Biblical text, and it is not found in any of today’s versions of the Bible.

It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.

THE DOCTRINE TAKES SHAPE

While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity (read this article to know the reality of Paul) , did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a “divine Son.” After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God’s revelations to man?

In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together and completed the process after were Paul had left it.

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.

A FORMAL DOCTRINE IS DRAWN UP

When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 A.D between two church men from Alexandria – Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop – Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.

Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.

Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the
doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

THE CHURCH PUTS ITS FOOT DOWN

The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; “Arianism” became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who did not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.

It wasn’t until 451A.D, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative.

Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.

DEBATE CONTINUES

Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, the said controversy continues even today.

The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental
doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than “I believe it because I was told to do so.” It is explained away as “mystery” – yet the Bible says in I Corinthians 14:33 that “… God is not the author of confusion…

The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the true preachings of Jesus:
…Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” (Luke 4:8)

ISLAM AND THE MATTER OF THE TRINITY

While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of Allah, such is not the case in Islam.

«”They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God.”» (Qur’an 5:73) It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name “Allah” as the name of God.

Suzanne Haneef, in her book WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ISLAM AND MUSLIMS (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says, “But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in.” (pp. 183-184)

Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.

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

This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in
turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Qur’an sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431A.D when she was given the title “Mother of God” by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verse in the Qur’an most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary (Bibi Maryam) by the Qur’an as a “member” of the Trinity, is simply not true.

While the Qur’an does condemn both trinitarianism (the Qur’an 4:17) and the worship of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and his mother Mary (Bibi Maryam) (the Qur’an 5:116), nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Qur’an is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.

In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept
conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Qur’an, God’s Final Revelations to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:

«”…your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner.”» (Qur’an 18:110)

«”…take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected.”» (Qur’an 17:39)

…Because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout All His Revealed Scriptures:

«”…I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other)…”» (Qur’an 21:92)

***********************************

Source: defendingislam.com

The Depiction of Jesus by Christians in Reality is a Depiction of an Ancient Pagan-deity!

The images of Jesus (Nabi ‘Eesa alayhissalaam) that Pagan Christians have in their churches, homes, Bibles, Sunday School or Sabbath School books are those which have the outward features of the chief pagan gods of the heathen world, That’s right! The “Jesus” of the Christian churches today in their depictions is not the real Jesus of the New Testament. The modern portrait (which they inherited from the Pagans/Idolaters of the last part of the fourth century) is nothing more than a characterization of the chief pagan gods, but Pagan Christians presently honor such pictures, icons or images as perfectly proper. If the apostles could come back to life and visit their churches or enter their homes, they would be aghast at seeing the chief god of the heathen world being honored or adored with esteem (and even being prayed to) by supposedly  “Christian” peoples.

Prof. Everett Ferguson in his excellent work titled “Backgrounds of Early Christianity” shows an example that the statues of Asclepius (the healing god of the heathen idolators) were images “that imitated those of Zeus … and that his portraiture influenced artists in depicting both Sarapis [the Egyptian Zeus] and Christ” (page 174). Does it make little difference if Christians call such pagan deities as “Jesus”?? Or is doing so a serious infringement of the teachings of the New Testament? This research study discusses this issue.

In the fourth century A.D it become common for many Gentile peoples throughout the Roman Empire (who had long worshiped pagan gods and goddesses) to begin identifying their deities of old with the newly honored “Jesus,” “Mary,” and the “twelve apostles” (plus other saints of the Old and New Testaments). One particular deity that seemed to blend together the attributes of several gods into a unified portrayal of deity was the Egyptian god “Sarapis.” This god had been famous for 600 years in Egypt and now his worship was found all over the Roman Empire. He was equated with the Greek Zeus (the chief god over all other gods) along with Asciepius (the god of healing).

image

The origin of the name “Sarapis” (often spelled “Serapis”) has had several derivations according to the national feeling of the people who worshiped him. But the name really has a Semitic origin. If one removes the final two letters (the “i” and the “s” which together represent a simple Greek terminal attached for euphonic reasons) we are left with “Serap” (or the Semitic “Seraph”). This name is found in the Bible. It identifies evil Jinns (Isaiah 6:17) whose name means “dazzling” or ‘brilliance” (M’Clintock & Strong, Cyclohpaedia, vol.IX p.568). The biblical word “Seraph’ also refers to a serpent (vol.IX, p. ~75), and it was commonly believed in the ancient world that some of the greatest deities of the pagans had various attributes that classified them symbolically as being like serpents. Eusebius (The first Christian historian said that the early writer Tauthus revealed that many pagan temples were consecrated to serpents and the people “in their honor celebrated festivals, and sacrifices, and mystic rites, regarding them [the serpents] as the greatest gods and rulers of the universe” (Preparation for the Gospel, I.X. sect.42b). The apostle John, taking up the “snake” theme, mentioned that Satan had his evil ones and that he was “that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceives the whole world” (Revelation 12:9). Satan, however, does not look like a snake.  Paul added that Satan actually appears to mankind in the form of an “angel of light” (II Corinthians 11:14).

If Satan the Devil reveals himself to man, it is in human form like an angel–like an angelic creature called a “Seraph” (or, in the Egyptian theophany, “Serapis”). . Remarkably, the pagan god “Serapis” of the fourth century appeared very much like what Christians (from the time of Constantine onwards) began to depict their “Jesus.”

Now look at this for a moment. It is more than coincidence that the portrait of “Jesus” that was adopted by Christians in the fourth century also shows a male person having long feminine hair. It was then a common thing to represent the pagan gods as having long hair. This was certainly the case with Zeus, Asclepius Hercules and the combination of pagan deities that gave Serapis his characteristics.

image

Serapis is always portrayed as Jesus in Pagan Churches. It is astonishing that since the time of Constantine in the fourth century, almost all the visionary experiences of people who believed they saw a personage they thought to be “Jesus,” have seen Serapis!. sometimes with a dazzling appearance (remember Paul describing Devil of Light as Lord!??). This is not the Jesus of Nazareth (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) whatsoever!

But by the fourth century, a great change of attitude began to take place among certain members of the Christian community. Even many orthodox Christians began to desire that Jesus be portrayed as the great philosophers of the world and with the Gentile depiction of divine greatness that they gave their Pagan gods. So Christians began to adopt a  White-Skinned  roman  pagan idol Serapis as “Jesus.”

The Change in Attitude to Portraitures of “Jesus”.

The middle and late parts of the fourth century brought on an entirely different belief-system in many Christian circles regarding the portrayal of Jesus and the apostles. It was a gigantic step into paganism. We have eyewitness accounts by some of the top Christian theologians of the time concerning the folly then being shown by certain artists and official rulers of wanting to depict Jesus like the world’s philosophers and in the way the pagan gods were portrayed.

These early theologians saw the error that the Christian world was being led into by misdirected people, but their appeal for sanity and common sense (as well as showing the biblical commands against such things) fell for the most part on deaf ears. The majority of the people then being converted to Christianity in the fourth century wanted Jesus to be shown in paintings and pictures (even as icons) and they erroneously selected the portrayals of the pagan philosophers and gods as their examples.

The following excerpts from early historical documents can show the opposition by several Christian theologians during and soon after the time of Constantine to the pagan portrayals of Jesus that were then beginning to be distributed amongst orthodox Christians. Though such resistance to the pagan trend was expressed by some influential theologians, the approval by the imperial authorities along with the desire of the general populace caused their warnings to be disregarded. Thus, a new type of “Jesus” began to be displayed that has dominated Christian art forms until modern times.

The following quote (abridged) is from Eusebius’ “Letter to Constantia” (the sister of Constantine the Great). It shows the utter disdain of Eusebius for what was then happening. All words in brackets are my explanations: ‘You also wrote me about some supposed image of Christ, which image you wished me to send to you. Now what kind of thing is that you refer to as the image of Christ? I do not know what compelled you to request that an image of Our Savior should be shown. What kind of image of Christ are you seeking? Is it the true and unadulterated one which bears His essential characteristics [His divine image], or the one which He assumed for our sake when He took up the form of a servant [His human form]?… Granted, He has two forms, and even I do not think that your petition has to do with His divine form….

“Surely then, you are seeking His image as a servant, that of the flesh which He assumed for our sake…. How can one paint an image so unattainable and wonderful a form…unless, as so the unbelieving pagans, one is to represent things that have no possible resemblance to anything…? For they [the pagans] make such idols when they wish to form the likeness of what they think to be a god or, as they might say, one of the heroes or anything else of like nature, yet they are unable even to approach a likeness, and accurately represent some strange human forms. Surely, even you will agree with me that such practices are illegal for us. [Eusebius believed, accurately so, that even a true likeness of Jesus -if one were available -was still not allowed to be displayed by biblical teaching.]

Have you ever heard of such a resemblance yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things excluded and banished from churches all over the world, and does not everyone know that such practices are not permitted to us alone?

“Once there was a woman, I do not know how, brought me in her hands a picture of two men in the demeanor of philosophers” [Dio Chrostom, “Oration Thirty-Five,” vol.III,pp.391,401, Loeb ed., stated that Gentile philosophers generally wore long hair] and the woman mentioned that they were Paul and the Savior. I have no way of knowing where she got this information or where she learned it. But in order that neither she nor others might receive offense, I took the picture away from her and kept it in my house, as I thought it was improper for such things to be displayed to others, lest we appear, like idol worshipers, to carry our God around in an image. I note that Paul informs all of us not to hold any more to things of the flesh; because he tells us that though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet from now on we know Him no more.

Eusebius (who has been reckoned the most educated Christian at the time and he was certainly the first historian of the Christian faith) was not the only one who was indignant at the trend that was then in vogue to portray Jesus, the apostles and other saints of the Bible. Others also show how erroneous the artists were in their depictions and how wrong their pictures were from the biblical point of view.

The following quote is from Epiphanius of Salamis in his “Letter to the Emperor Theodosius” (written somewhere between A.D.379-395). The chief role of Epiphanius was his stern opposition to, and his battles against, the heresies then afflicting the Christian world. Note what he said: “Which of the ancient Fathers ever painted an image of Christ and put it in a church or a private home? [None of them ever did such a thing.] Which ancient bishop ever dishonored Christ by portraying Him on door curtains?…

“Moreover, they are deceiving who represent the likeness of [biblical] saints in different forms according to their whim, sometimes showing the same persons as old men, sometimes as youths, intruding into things which they have not seen. For they paint the Savior with long hair, and this by guessing because He is called a Nazarene, and Nazarenes wear long hair. They are in error if they try to attach stereotypes to Him.

Not only did the early Christian authorities believe it was wrong to display the image of Jesus or the apostles (even if true ones had been available), but they complained that the artists at their time were now giving Jesus long hair.

The following quote is from Theodorus Lector of the early 500’s A.D. as excerpted from Nicephoras Callistus Xanthopoulos’ “Church History, 1,15”: “At the time of Gennadius [Patriarch of Constantinople from 458 to 471] the hand of a painter was withered who dared to paint the Savior in the likeness of Zeus (yet another Pagan deity).

But by the fourth century, They began to show him like the Roman-pagan gods  and in the exact manner in which the heathen honored and adored their great men.

Theodorus Lector (as quoted by John Damascene):

“A certain painter had his two hands withered while he was painting an image of Our Lord Christ. It was said that the commission of [creating] the image was given to him by a pagan and that under the deception of the Jesus’ name, he painted the hair of the head parted in such a manner so as to leave the whole of the face uncovered [the hair flowing down each side of the face]. It is in this form that the pagans designate Zeus. So that those who saw it would think that the veneration was directed to the Savior [but Theodorus was showing it was deceptively directed to Zeus].”

Theodorus Lector (in the above quote) shows where the real problem lay with the practice of portraying Jesus with like the pagans imagined Zeus to look. It meant that the mindset of the people at the time continued with the same outward form of worshiping Zeus even though they had changed his name to “Jesus.” They began to think (in spite of what the early theological authorities taught) that God really did not mind Jesus being portrayed like a pagan god was painted or depicted. They failed to read the commands of God to the early Israelites that not only were pagan idols and images to be destroyed, but even PICTURES were also to be singled out for destruction. ‘You shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their PICTURES, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places” (Numbers 33:52). Even Paul warned Christians to “flee idolatry” (I Corinthians 10:14) and the apostle John commanded Christians to “keep yourselves from idols” (I John 5:21). But people of the fourth and fifth centuries were not only bringing PICTURES of Zeus right into their churches and homes, but they were beginning to call Zeus “Jesus.” This alarmed some of the Christian authorities.

Augustine, of the early fifth century (who has been considered the most influential theologian by both Catholics and many Protestants for the next thousand years), also had a warning about depicting God in human form.

“It is not to be thought that God the Father is circumscribed by human form It is unlawful to set up such an image to God in a Christian temple. Much more is it wicked to set it up in the heart where the temple of God truly is.”

see Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol.I p.875

But even this warning had little effect on Pagan-Christian people went right on with their image making (and even making false pictures and paintings of “Jesus” by portraying him to be like the pagan philosophers and Zeus).

What these later Christians failed to realize is that the calling of Zeus by the name “Jesus,” made it easier for the pagan doctrines and festivals of the heathen world to slip into the early Christian church. And the pagan teachings came in with a flood and Christianity got its present-day pagan elements from those corruption. Sadly, most Christians today seem to accept the same general philosophy of those who introduced Zeus as being the new “Jesus” of the fourth and fifth centuries. Christians today are prone to say: “There is no harm whatever in showing Jesus with long hair like the pagan gods.” They often say: “Why pay attention to the  Paul, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodorus Lector and the rest of those in late antiquity who condemned such pagan depictions of Jesus? Let us go right on and continue to display them in our churches because we feel there is nothing wrong in it.” That is the attitude of most theologians, preachers, priests, evangelists and even the majority of the Idolator church laity today! They want to retain this false image.

This attitude is the normal approach being expressed by Christians today whether in an active sense or remaining quiet in a passive way (not wanting to rock-the-boat over the many false evil doctrines in the church). Indeed, this was the exact attitude which was shown by many Christians in the fourth and fifth centuries when the pagan depictions of Jesus (and pagan doctrines and ideas) began to sweep into the Christian community.

The outcome of such a procedure in the fourth and fifth centuries resulted NOT in the overthrow of paganism, but in its retention as the religion of the Christian church. Though the pagan belief system came to be graced with Christian names rather than by the old heathen titles, it was paganism that continued to flourish, not the real Christianity as practiced by Nazarenes, Ebionites and followers of Arius. The same old Roman-Greeco paganism was revitalized into full bloom, but this time it was now dressed in Christian clothes. Cardinal to the issue was the transformation of Zeus (or Serapis) and the outward appearance of the pagan gods into a new portrayal of so-called “Jesus.”

And it is this “Jesus” (i.e. Zeus or Serapis) whom people now display in their churches, homes, in their Sunday and Sabbath School books, and even in their Bibles. They grace him with the name “Jesus,” but he is actually Zeus in human form -the chief of the pagan gods.

The First Heretics in the New Testament Used Such False Images

There was one central figure and his teachings that is singled out by Luke when he wrote the Book of Acts (under the direction of the apostle Paul) as one heretic that the Christian community in the future should pay close attention to. That man was Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-25). He was a Samaritan who was (on the surface) converted to Christ. By the time Luke finally wrote the Book of Acts, this man and his followers (though claiming to be Christians) had begun to teach doctrines that were utterly contrary to the teachings of the True followers of Hadhrat ‘Eesa alayhissalaam. The Christian fathers of the second, third and fourth centuries were almost totally united in calling him (and the philosophy that he established) as one of the heresy that was to deceive (and continued to deceive) the real Christians of the first few decades of the faith. The second century Christian scholar, Irenaeus, said that the Samaritan Simon was the very person “from whom all the heresies took their origin” (Contra Heresies, 1.23.2). The main point of Simon’s philosophy was to pretend to be a Christian, when he was not Just like Paul and Constantine who introduced Pagan doctrines of Salvation and so on (for details read this: How Paul Inducted Pagan Doctrines Into Christianity and Corrupted the True Teachings of Jesus [‘Eesa alayhissalaam])

There can hardly be a doubt that Irenaeus’ appraisal was correct. From then on to the time of Eusebius (and including the testimony of Eusebius himself), Simon is singled out as the originator of all the principal heresies that afflicted the Christian community in its first four centuries of existence. That is why he is given a prominent position in the Book of Acts (8:14-25). He was the one who originated what came to be called “Gnosticism,” and even scholars are now beginning to realize he was its author (this is shown in the historical study first published in French but now translated into English by Simone Petrement titled “A Separate God,” or “The Christian Origins of Gnosticism,” Harper/Collins, San Francisco, 1990).

What did Simon Magus introduce into the later teachings of Christianity?? Here is what the Gnostics (who had their origin with Simon Magus) began to do. Irenaeus said:

“They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world ; that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles”

(Contra Heresies, I.25.6).

But who was this “Christ” that these followers of Simon Magus were depicting with their images while they were still claiming to be Christians??

“He [Simon Magus] was glorified by many as a god; and he taught that it was he himself who, forsooth, appeared among the Jews as the Son, while in Samaria he descended as the Father, and in the rest of the world he came as the Holy Spirit [this is the first mention of the doctrine of a Trinity in Christian theology -Simon Magus originated the Trinity doctrine]. That he was the highest power, to wit, the Father over all, and that he allowed himself to be called by whatever name men pleased.”

Contra Heresies, 1.23.1

Simon Magus claimed to be the real Jesus Christ who was supposed to have been crucified in Judaea under Pontius Pilate. And masses of people began to believe his story. To the Gentiles he claimed to be none other than their chief of the gods, Zeus, and his followers made images of him looking like Zeus. He even commanded that statues be made of himself and a woman he found in ‘lyre by the name of Helen. They were claimed by Simon to be the male and female principles of divine power that the pagan nations then worshiped. Remarkably, Simon claimed these things (and got away with it in many circles) while advocating that he was a Christian. The ones that arose after him and Helen in the second century (and beyond) continued to make statues to Simon and Helen and used them in their worship to God.

“They [the Gnostics] also have an image of Simon made in the likeness of Jupiter[Greek: Zeus], and of Helen in that of Minerva [Greek: Athena]; and they worship the statues; and they have a designation from their most impiously minded founder, being called Simonians, from whom the Gnosis [knowledge], falsely so-called, derives its origins, as one can learn from their own assertions.”

Contra Heresies, 1.23.4

The early third century Christian scholar, Hippolytus, also referred to these heretics that were now calling themselves Christians.

“They have a statue of Simon in the form of Zeus, and one of Helen in the form of Athena [the Virgin], which they worship, calling the former Lord and the latter Lady. And if any among them on seeing the images, calls them by the name of Simon or Helen, he is cast out as one ignorant of the mysteries.”

Philosophumena, VI. 20

The simple truth is, the Simonians did not want Zeus and Athena to be called by their real names of Simon and Helen (the actual human beings who once lived on earth). They wanted those in their circle to give them high sounding theological and philosophical names. Simon claimed he was another appearance of Christ Jesus and that Helen was the “lost sheep” that Jesus spoke about in the Gospels. She was reckoned by Simon the Virgin Lady Athena, while Simon was the real Zeus (Latin: Jupiter) who displayed various outward ornaments of power with his long hair. This is one reason why Paul told the Corinthian Gentile men NOT to let their hair grow long!

These Gnostics who followed Simon Magus, Paul and Constantine though in the first three centuries they were outside the mainstream of what we call True Christianity of Nazarenes,Ebionites and Arius still referred to themselves as the real Christians who had the Knowledge of what True teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was all about unlike the pagan-christians of present-day.

The Gnostics produced in the first three hundred years of Christian history many voluminous works, many of which have not come down to us today, although quite a great deal has been discovered and translated in the past forty years. They were the first ones to advocate that Jesus actually looked like Zeus in appearance and they made statues of him (and of Simon who claimed to be Christ, and Helen who was thought to be the Virgin Athena).

And what happened in the fourth century when Constantine came to power and the Christian community became part and parcel of the Roman Empire?? It was then that the orthodox section of Christianity also began to take up with the same type of general philosophy of Simon Magus — especially in his teaching of the Trinity, the Immortality of the Soul, and depicting Jesus in the likeness of Zeus (or Serapis who was the Egyptian version of Zeus) and showing Simon’s Helen as the Virgin.

This is one of the main reasons why Luke felt compelled to mention by name, the Idol-maker heretic Simon Magus. By the time Luke wrote the Book of Acts (somewhere near A.D. 66), the teachings about Simon and the “Virgin Lady” had already began to filter through many Christian circles and Luke (along with the apostle Paul who directed Luke in his writing of Acts) felt it was essential to identify the origin of the heretical nonsense that was developing within the Christian community (and what was to prevail) in the next four centuries.

And true to form, the teachings and philosophies of Simon Magus were those that finally conquered the Christian community from the time of Constantine onward. Because of this, the Christian world has been saddled with the images of Zeus (or his Egyptian counterpart, Serapis) as “Jesus” ever since. They were also introduced to Helen, who was the “Virgin Lady” (who finally developed into the statues of “Mary”). But the principal deity that was preferred the most was Serapis in his human form with long hair.

With the time of Constantine new type of JESUS began to he portrayed among the Christian population of the Roman Empire they took the style of grooming which was typical of the pagan gods and adopted it as their “JESUS he above drawing is from a bust in the British Museum of Sarapis. The Egyptian version of Zeus (the chief of the Gentile gods) See refrence Harper’s “Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities,” article “Coma.”

Let us now get down to the nitty-gritty of the whole issue. By substituting the image of Zeus for Jesus the people at the time continued to think of Zeus as their God (not the real Jesus of Bible). The Presbyterian minister from Wales, Peter Barnes, in his excellent booklet titled “Seeing Jesus — The Case Against Pictures of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Banner of Truth publications, 1990) has the following illustration to show the nonsense of making another person to represent Jesus.

“Many Christians argue that it does not matter [if we show a wrong picture of Jesus]; we can picture Christ irrespective of whether the result is accurate or not. But it would be strange if a wife, when her husband was away, were to look continually at the photograph of another man, and then contend that it did not matter because she was thinking of her husband.”

p.4

Christian morons today substitute their “husband” for the picture of a false pagan god. What Constantine and his successors did was to introduce Zeus as their god, but calling him “Jesus.” As for Constantine, himself, what he first thought he saw in his visions  was the Sun God named Helios inspired by Shaitaan mardud. That is, he at first believed the person of his visions was “Helios” until he was told by certain Pagan- Christian theologians that his “Helios” was actually ” Jesus” of the New Testament and that the cross he saw in the sky before the Battle of Milvian Bridge (c. A.D.312) was “Christ’s cross” and not the sign of “Helios.” (Sol Invictus–the Invincible Sun).

It is because at this time in history there had been so much religious syncretism going on in identifying the various pagan deities [the phrase “religious syncretism” means the blending together of the various features of the multitude of gods that the gods themselves are molded into one, unified being]. Note the quote below given by Prof. Herrin.

“The cults of the ancient Egyptian gods and goddesses, those of Persia and lands further east, as well as those of Greece, made familiar in their Latin guise, engendered shrines, statues, and temples dedicated to Mithras and Serapis, Diana, Jupiter, Hecate, Isis, and the Phoenician Baal in different parts of the West. Under a powerful tendency to syncretism, many of these were worshipped together, as joint dedications to Zeus, Helios, Serapis, and Mithras record.”

The Formation of Christendom, Princeton University, 1989, p.21

Prof. Ferguson also informs us that the blending of the various heathen gods was widespread during the time of Constantine and Constantine himself was a Pagan sun-worshipper.

“The idea that all peoples worshiped the same gods under different names had long been held by the Greeks; syncretism in religion made it common in Roman times. Various deities were given the attributes of others, and this process was extended to merge the deities into one. The old polytheism was kept by regarding the deities as subordinate powers under the supreme god. Astral theologians contributed a new concept of the universe which identified this supreme god with the sun.”

Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Eerdmans, 1987, p.252

For a decade of years and more after claiming to be a Christian, Constantine was still minting coins showing “Helios” as the Invincible Sun and protector of his Empire (see Frend, “The Early Church,” Fortress, 1982, p. 137). He also ordered his army to devote their piety to God on Sunday, the day which was the pagan day in honor of the Sun (Also read: The Christian/Gregorian Calendar and its Pagan roots) . This was a reason why most Christians went over to keeping Sunday as their day of worship. Earlier Christians kept Saturday (the Sabbath of the Bible). Christians even commenced their observance of Christmas for the same reason (also read:December 25: The Pagan-Occult Origins of Christmas. Prof. Ferguson continues:

“The solar calendar introduced by Caesar and Augustus encouraged sun festivals, especially the birthday of the invincible sun — December 25. The popularity of this festival, the Saturnalia, in late pagan times appears to have been the decisive factor in the church’s choice of December 25 as the day to celebrate the birth of Jesus.”

ibid., p.253

Since Macrobius, at the end of the fourth century, in his Saturnalia (I. 17.2ff), stated that all the various gods of the nations were simply powers or activities of the Sun, it was determined by most pagan theologians that all the pagan deities (along with the God of the Jews) were manifestations of the Sun and it would have been no surprise to Constantine that “Christ Jesus” was also such a manifestation at his vision before the Battle of Milvian Bridge.

This new type of “Jesus” originated within the fourth century when paganism adopted Christian names to describe their deities and this is the same Idols depicted in Pagan-Churches till the present-day. 

How Paul Inducted Pagan Doctrines Into Christianity and Corrupted the True Teachings of Jesus [‘Eesa (alayhissalaam)]

image

                     Paul of Tarsus

There was an apostle, who wrote an epistle,

strange faith did he jostle, and scriptures entwistle.

His doctrines pentacostal, made GOD’s people bristle,
and blapshemy collosal, led to his dismissal.

Apostle, epistle, collossal, dismissal,
His writings bescissel, make faith so afissile.

GOD created man in Adam’s image.
Then the Christians came along and recreated GOD in man’s image.
_Anonymous

Quite a number of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) wish they could Turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become Manifest unto them: But forgive and overlook, Till Allah brings about His command; for Allah Hath power over all things. (Qur’an Surah Al-Baqarah 2:109)

In the annals of religious history, Paul happens to be a surprise. Why??, he is the only figure to admit to lying and strangely enough, justifying it as well. When the prophets clearly condemned this evil habit, Paul glorified it, and put a new meaning to the ends will justify the means.

During the ministry of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam), Saul (Paul) was a dedicated member of a powerful, exclusive Jewish sect called Pharisees (ACTS 26:5). Their pretensions to sanctity had labelled them as hypocrites. When these overbearing vainglorious Jews confronted Jesus, he called them:

“You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
(John 8:44)

Saul, a zealous persecutor of the devoted disciples of Christ, became the first Christian missionary and an Apostle to the Gentiles after converting himself to Christianity by a “vision”, which he claims he had, while on the road to Damascus. The missionary changed his name from Saul to Paul and became the biggest contributor to the Books of the New Testament.

From the above verse, Jesus like many of his predecessors condemned lying, deceit and hypocrisy. Lying is condemned several times throughout the Bible, and deceit by its own nature, is sinful and can only lead to hazardous consequences. What does Peter say in regards to guile (which means cunning, deceit, trickery, treachery)

For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that speak no guile
(1 PETER 3:12)

The verse speaks for itself. One of the factors that hinder mans success in this world and eternal life in the hereafter, is the use of guile. But on his own admittance, what does Paul say?:

But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless being crafty, I CAUGHT YOU WITH GUILE
(2 CORINTHIANS 12:16)

On his own admission, Paul is saying that he uses deception in his modus operandi. In all the new versions of the Bible, the more common term of deceit is replaced instead.

This statement is made long after his conversion to Christianity, in the phase when he supposed to be blessed and righteous, and most importantly of all, being guided by Christ.

For our exhortation [was] not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile: (1 Thessalonians 2:3)

Paul now speaks with two tongues, guile he can

But what I do, that will I do, that I may cut off occasion from those which desire occasion;…
(2 CORINTHIANS 11:13)

In the New Revised Standard Version, the verse reads in order to deny an opportunity to those who want an opportunity to be recognized as our equals.. He can’t be any clearer or succinct, If any other Christian group tries to rival Pauls mission, he will seek to utilise means of destroying any opportunity that may arise for his opponents. This goes completely against the morals from what we know of Jesus and the Prophets of age. If Paul believed he had the truth, there would be no need to play games and power struggles, as the truth will always prevail in the end. The use of deceit and craftiness is the mark of the insecure and paranoid, not so certain that his own faith is correct, he had more hope in his will and ways prevailing, rather than the truth of the message of Christ.

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law;
To them that are without the law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are under the law.
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
(I CORINTHIANS 9:19-22)

What better illustration of hypocrisy could be given. For the sake of the truth, Paul will use all means of deceit, insincerity, ruse etc in order to gain more followers. Just like his successors today, the missionaries put on a face of every ethnic race. You can see them at many of their websites, to the Muslims; they put themselves under the guise of WORLD VISION and other aid programs, and when they inject the needle, they also try to inject the needle of Christianity along side it. To the Jewish people, the Christian missionaries love Jews, Israel and Zionism (one point that they could never mention to the Muslims), bagels and Seinfeld. This love becomes so much that its insincere face starts to show.

It is the wish of a section of the People of the Book to lead you astray. But they shall lead astray (Not you), but themselves, and they do not perceive!
Sura Al-Imran 3.69

For if the truth of God, hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory: why yet am I also judged as a sinner? (ROMANS 3:7)

Even though Paul admits to lying (like he has in many other places), never how much he tries to defend his actions, the rational spiritual mind will never accept it. Lying is at the root of falsehood, the very element that is completely opposed to truth. The truth is a means to an end. If a Muslim wanted to build a Mosque and he required funding to do so; there are several ways he could go about it. If he decided to rob a bank and used the stolen cash to build the Masjid, all his efforts will be in vain. Allah will never accept it from him, even though the man did it for Allah’s sake. The fact is that the ends don’t justify the means, to get to paradise, you must choose the road that leads to paradise. And deceit is definitely not on that road.

Cursed [be] he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, …
(Jeremiah 48:10)

ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS

The turning point in the life of Paul happens to be his crucial trip from Jerusalem to Damascus. Many would agree that if Paul did see a vision of of Christ, it would leave an undeniable imprint in his mind. And the fact that this is supposedly recorded in the “Book of God”, their should be consistency in the way the incident is narrated. As God is not the author of confusion.

NARRATION 1

And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
(ACTS 9:3-7)

NARRATION 2

And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
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.
And I said, What shall I do, LORD? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
(ACTS 22:6-10)

NARRATION 3

Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
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.
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.
And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
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.
(ACTS 26:12-20)

DISCREPANCIES IN THE NARRATIONS

In the first we have a record of Paul’s men, hearing a voice and seeing no man (i.e Jesus). In the second narration, we have Paul claiming that the men saw Jesus, but did not hear a voice. The possibility of Paul manipulating this “event” is clearly revealed in the second narration, we have Paul defending himself before the Hebrew counsel, and twisting the point that his companions saw a light, but did not hear the voice; apperantly adds more credibility to his phenomenal vision. As a voice could be anyones voice for what the Jews care. Yes there is a contradiction, but from what we have seen from the character of Paul, it should not come as a surprise. In the third narration, he omits any mention of the specific incident.

The first and second narration are consistent when it comes to claiming only he fell to the ground when he saw the light. In the third narration, he claims he and his companions fell down. Why the change of retrospect, given the fact that Paul was defending himself in the third narration at the Court of King Agrippa, dramatising the vision by claiming all his men fell to the earth highlighted the desire to show the great impact this event had not just on his life, but those who were in his presence.

What clearly reveals the flaw-ness of his vision, is that in the third narration when addressing King Agrippa and his Gentile court. He makes the claim that in his vision, Jesus told him that he will be Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee. So in effect, Paul is claiming that Jesus sent him to the Gentiles, (possibly in order placate the crowd present). And in the second narration to the Jews, he brings absolutely no mention of this “I’am sending you to the Gentiles” alleged statement that Jesus told him. Why not?, the obvious answer lies in the respective audience being addressed.

In a Court of Law, such contradictory evidence would be held suspect and hence dismissed or cross-examined.

Back to the specific issue of whether the disciples heard the voice or not. The Apologisers for the New Testament, as well as the NIV bible, have tried to cover up the contradiction between Acts 9:7 and 22:9 by translating Acts 9:7, “akouontes men tes phones” (literally “they heard the voice”, but, skewing the words of Acts 22:9, “phonen ouk hakousan” (literally, “they did not hear the voice”) into, “they did not understand the voice”.

And, according to Luke’s own report of Paul, Paul was well familiar with better words for “understanding”. In Acts 28:26,
Paul says,

“In hearing, you shall hear but not understand.”

The Greek work he uses for “understand” is syniete. He also uses the word in Rom 3:11, 15:21, 2 Cor 10:12, and Eph
5:17. Luke also uses this word frequently, Luke 2:50, 8:10 (when Jesus is allegedly concealing his meaning from
folks), Luke 18:34, 24:45, and Acts 28:27 to indicate a lack of understanding. So, if Paul (or Luke) had meant that
Paul’s companions heard the voice but did not understand it, they could have easily chosen to use “syniete” instead, so
that there would have been no question of contradiction in testimony. You’d think this would be important. Could it be possible that Paul fell victim to his own theory

…For Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2 CORINTHIANS 11:14

Regardless of the voice his campanions heard (and did not hear), there is the issue of the big light that persuaded Paul.

Even before he is told who his Big Light is, Paul addresses it as “lord” (which tends to make the whole account sound rather
contrived). But, Paul already recognises an “Angel of Light” as Satan (see 2 Cor 11:14 above).

And, in fact, an Angel of Light is
identified in Isaiah 14:12 as Tyre the Morning Star, who is the enemy of GOD fallen from heaven for claiming to ascend to
heaven (Tyre is often seen as representative of Satan). So, for Paul to immediately call a Big Light his “lord” is quite telling.

It is too much of a paradox, because the verse prior to the one above (in which he refers to his rivals as discussed earlier). Paul states

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. (2 CORINTHIANS 11:13)

The saint (?) is accusing others of being deceitful while he himself, not only practices deceit, but admits to it as well as takes pride in it. According to this strange mentality, he thinks he can beautify the word “deceit”, and expect everyone to buy into it. The term deceit does not having opposing definitions, i.e., a positive connotation for Paul and a negative one for his competitors.

Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah, or saith, “I have received inspiration,” when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, “I can reveal the like of what Allah hath revealed”? If thou couldst but see how the wicked (do fare) in the flood of confusion at death! – the angels stretch forth their hands, (saying),”Yield up your souls: this day shall ye receive your reward,- a penalty of shame, for that ye used to tell lies against God, and scornfully to reject of His signs!”
(Al -An’am 6:93)

Yes folks, another surprise is awaiting. What does he do now, he rallies against those who practice deceit in the upcoming verses.

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips:
(Romans 3:13)

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (Romans 1:29)

Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds (Colossians 3:9)

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; (1 Timothy 4:2)

So much for abiding by the “practice what you preach” motto. The whole Bible is full of such verses; to make sure Paul is not alone in this manner. His contemporaries speak

But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
(James 3:14)

I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
(1 John 2:21)

If Paul has a difficult time applying such moral teachings to himself, he should take heed of what Christ’s discpiles warned in the above. And also what the Old Testament, the books he is so fond of quoting when it suits his interests has to say.

Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.
(Psalms 5:6)

His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue [is] mischief and vanity. (Psalms 10:7)

Thou lovest all devouring words, O [thou] deceitful tongue.
(Psalms 52:4)

He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight. (Psalms 101:7)

For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue. (Psalms 109:2)

Thou hast trodden down all them that err from thy statutes: for their deceit [is] falsehood.
(Psalms 119:118)

Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, [and] from a deceitful tongue.
(Psalms 120:2)

A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful [witness] speaketh lies. (Proverbs 14:25)

Bread of deceit [is] sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel.
(Proverbs 20:17)

Faithful [are] the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy [are] deceitful. (Proverbs 27:6)

Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
(Ecclesiasticus 27:25)

Whoso casteth a stone on high casteth it on his own head; and a deceitful stroke shall make wounds. (Mark 7:22)

PUTTING THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE

Deception was not an uncommon tool of the Paulian church. At first, ‘St.’ Paul considered deception (guile) and flattery to be inappropriate tools for his ministry. Paul grouped Guile with the evils of deceit and uncleanliness, denying to his Thessalonian church that he had used guile on them,

For our urgent request was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in Guile… For neither at any time used we flattering words, as you all know, nor a cloak of covetousness; God is witness: Nor did we seek glory from men, neither from you nor others, though perhaps we had burdened you… (1st Thessalonians 2:3-6)

“Burdened you” is a euphamism, used often, for “asked you for money”. And, as you will see below, after a few years, ‘St.’ Paul used both flattery and guile in getting his Corinthian church to accept their “burden”.

But, later, writing to the church at Corinth, Paul admits to them that he had used guile (trickery/deception), sending others (such as Titus) instead of himself (whom he knew some of them opposed) to motivate them into a generous state (2 Cor 8:6). How sending others amounted to trickery is not specifically stated… merely that it did. A very likely reason is this: It is known that there was dissent among those in the Corinthian church over which apostle to follow. Not everyone was loyal to St. Paul, or believed in his authority (for one of many examples, see 2 Cor 13:3). Thus, some Corinthians were reluctant to make donations to St. Paul, and he clearly wrote a great deal of the 2nd Corinthians Letter for the express purpose of convincing them of their obligation to give (voluntarily, of course). Whatever the case, Paul admits that he used guile, and associates it with his sending others to them to solicit donations.

For the third time I am planning to visit you; and I will not burden you. For I seek not what is yours (money), but you. For children ought not save up for the parents, but parents for the children. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you… But be that as it may, I myself did not burden you. Rather, being crafty, I took you in with Guile. But, did I make a profit from you by those whom I sent to you? I chose Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a profit from you?… I fear that, when I arrive… there shall be arguments, jealousies, wraths, strifes, slanderings, whisperings, swellings, and tumults.
(2nd Corinthians 12:14-20)

Ironically, Paul is careful not to mention “beguilings” in his list here. As for flattering words, the entire Letter of 2nd Corinthians is absolutely dripping with phrases saying how proud Paul is of them, how he praises them and boasts of the generosity he expects to receive from them (see 2nd Cor 1:14, 7:4, 7:15, 8:24, 9:2). Paul tells them he has “godly” jealousies for them (2 Cor 11:2). The whole notion of psychological manipulation such as this reeks of guile. And, his boasting has purpose

After flattering the Corinthians with his bragging of them, of their eagerness to give, Paul tries to play on their sense of pride and
embarrassment, playing them against the Macedonian church:

We want you to know about the gifts of God which was shown in the churches of Macedonia: Despite great trial of affliction, the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the wealth of their generosity. For they gave to their limit, I assure you, and were willing to give more than their means, and with much appeal they implored us that we accept the hospitality and gifts in ministry to the church leaders. …So, we have urged Titus that he should secure from you this work of grace (giving) as he had already begun to do… See that you excel in this gracious work.
(2 Cor 8:2-7)

We hope that no one will object to the generous gifts that we are arranging… So, give proof, before the churches, of your love and of our boasting of you to these men.
(2 Cor 8:20,24)

For regarding the offering to the church leaders, it is unnecessary for me to motivate you. For I know the eagerness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia… Yet I had sent the others to you instead, for fear that our boasting of you should be unfounded in this respect (that, as I said, you all may be prepared (to give)), for fear that, if by chance some from Macedonia came with me and found you unprepared to give, we would be ashamed (we, and not you, no) due to this confident boasting. (2 Cor 9:1-4)

Guile is certainly deception. Flattery is simply rather shameful. And they lend themselves nicely to each other. But, deception (especially for the sake of proselytising) was to lay the foundation of the European church. And the missionaries of today seem to have no qualms in utilising it. This will be looked at separately later on.

Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
(PSALMS 32:2)

PAUL WAS INFLUENCED BY SHAITAAN MAR(SATAN/DEVIL)

The Pauline Epistles and the narrative of Acts of the Apostles, present the vast majority of information that we have today on Paul of Tarsus.

Paul is essentially one of the greatest influences on early Christian theology, his struggles, his preaching, his conversion all constitute major plot elements of the early Christian narrative. I would like to begin this exposition by stating that this is not a simple and erratic attack on Paul.

Rather, this is an examination of his statements as recorded in the New Testament, accompanied by commentaries from illustrious Christian exegetes. It is not my intention to hurt the sensitivities of our Christian brethren, but as a Muslim, it is my duty to examine the veracity of the Christian faith which claims to be the truth, above and beyond my own religion of Islam. With that in mind, let’s take a look at what we’ll be seeking to understand:

The New Testament Source.

YHWH/ Christ commands the
Messengers of Satan.

Paul is afflicted by a Messenger of Satan.

Paul writes Epistles while under the influence of the Messenger of Satan.

Paul learns about Christ’s grace through a Messenger of Satan.

The New Testament Source:

Recorded in the Second Epistle to Corinth, we read of an experience that Paul encounters:

Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness. ” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. – 2 Corinthians 12:7-9.

If we were to read from the beginning of this Epistle, we would easily derive the understanding that Paul is being taught a lesson by God. This is in doing so that Paul, can avoid becoming conceited through his own experiences, thus, God has put a ‘thorn in his side’ – a messenger of Satan. This however is not a position unique to Paul, according to the Old Testament, God has, and frequently does, send evil Spirits/ Messengers of Satan to his own people.

YHWH/ Christ Commands the Messengers of Satan:

As the verse itself indicates, it is God who commanded the Messenger of Satan to become a ‘thorn in Paul’s side’. This presents a problem for the Christian faith, specifically because:

How can it be a Messenger of Satan if it is being commanded by God??

Therefore it has to be a Messenger of God as it is abiding by the commands of the Lord.

The Messenger of Satan therefore, according to the Bible is also the Messenger of God.

The question begs itself, if the Messengers of Satan are also the Lord’s messengers, then how can we can distinguish between the messages that the Messengers are bringing, if the messenger is simultaneously under the authority of God and Satan? Paul himself, prayed for God to remove a Messenger of Satan sent by God from tormenting him, but God refused his request. Therefore we have Paul refusing to listen to a Messenger as sent by God to him. This would therefore have to mean that all Messengers of Satan are also Messengers of God.

Paul is Afflicted by the Messenger of Satan:

According to the verse, Paul became tormented by this messenger of Satan:

I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

In what exact way the messenger of Satan/ God tormented Paul, is up for much discussion. Various exegetes have derived polarising views on the exact meaning of what the torment could be, however, there are a few general views on this issue. Let’s first read Adam Clarke’s exegesis:

What this thorn in the flesh might be has given birth to a multitude of conjectures:
Tertullian thought it dolor auriculae, the ear ache;Chrysostom , the head ache; Cyprian, carnis et corporismulta ac gravia tormenta, many and grievous bodily torments. I believe the apostle to refer simply to the distresses he had endured through the opposition he met with at Corinth; which were as painful and grievous to him as a thorn in his flesh , or his being bound to a stake;
Therefore we can deduce the torment as given to Paul by the Messenger of Satan as being:

1. Ear aches.
2. Head aches.
3. Bodily torments.
4. Difficulties in preaching.

However, we have a much more detailed and reference list of supposed ailments that could have been what the tormenting was, according to the Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, he states:

Tertullian thought it was a headache.

Klausner believed it was epilepsy.
Ramsay identified it as recurrent malarial fever.

Chrysostom said it was “all the adversaries of the Word.
John Calvin made it “fleshly temptation.”

Martin Luther considered it “spiritual temptation.”

John Knox decided it was “infirmities of the mind.”

Catholic commentators generally say “lustful thoughts.”

McGarvey: “acute, disfiguring ophthalmia.”

Macknight spoke of some who believed it was “the false teachers.”

Lightfoot suggested “blasphemous thoughts of the devil.”

Alexander was sure it was “Malta fever.” Etc., etc.

Therefore, the ailments can be summarised as such:
1. Bodily.
2. Of the mind.
3. Of the Spirit.

Whichever of these the case may be, the point is that Paul was most definitely indeed, emotionally at pain and suffering from some form of physical impediment, to the extent he could not bare it and called upon God to help him.

Epistles were Written Under the Influence of the Messenger of Satan:

According to verse 14 of the same chapter, Paul continues to preach while under the influence and torment of the Messenger of Satan/ God, the verse reads:

Now I am ready to visit you for the third time

In verse 20, Paul reaffirms that something is not right with him, something is amiss, so he tells the people at Corinth to not expect him to be normal upon his arrival:

you may not find me as you want me to be

Up to this point, Paul has not yet been able to remove the torment/ influence of the Messenger of Satan/ God upon him and he admits in Chapter 13 of the same Epistle that he continues to write while under the influence:

This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority— the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.

While Paul is under the influence of the messenger of Satan, he continues to write and continues to hold the authority of the Lord.

This brings into validation my earlier argument that since the messenger of Satan was under the authority of the Lord, then it was indeed a messenger of the Lord. What qualified my statement, was that even Paul who was being directly influenced and tormented by the messenger of Satan (the Lord), he persisted in laying claim to God’s authority. Therefore even while under the directives of the messenger of Satan, Paul continued to write to Churches and still carried the ‘authority’ of God. Hence the question begs itself, if this is as the case presents itself, how can we distinguish between the authority of the Lord and the influence of the Messenger of Satan/ the Lord? Paul here, indirectly refers to Satan (who is influencing him presently) as giving him the authority of the Lord!

The Messenger of Satan Teaches Paul, Christ’s Grace:

According to the verse, Paul asks Christ (his God) to remove the influence/ torment of the messenger of Satan. However God’s reply is strange, God says to Paul that the messenger is meant to teach him grace, as only grace an save him from the punishment of the messenger of Satan:

Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “ My grace is sufficient for you , for my power is made perfect in weakness. ”

Therefore, as the verse clearly demonstrates, the purpose of the messenger of Satan, was to teach Paul of Tarsus the true message of Christ’s grace.

The case henceforth, is that Paul was sent a messenger of Satan, who is truly a messenger of God, to torment Paul. The tormenting could be bodily, of the mind or spiritually, perhaps even a combination of two or all three ailments. Paul received this messenger of Satan because he became prideful (self conceited), the use of the messenger was also to teach Paul grace. A Messenger of Satan was sent to teach Paul the true meaning of grace. Last but not least, Paul was unable to rid himself of this messenger of Satan, who remained with Paul and influenced/ tortured him as he preached and wrote Epistles, which are in today’s Bible.

WHY DID PAUL PREACH TO THE GENTILES (Non-Jews)??

Source: callingchristians.com/2013/01/01/why-did-paul-preach-to-the-gentiles/

At Paul’s time there were two primary groups of which he could have targeted to preach his new self developed brand of soteriology to; the Jews and the Gentiles.

However, as history dictates, Paul chose the gentiles and quickly won favour among their peoples. So much so, that he eventually entitled himself with the position of the ‘Apostle of the Gentiles‘:

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office – Romans 11:13.

The question therefore begs itself, why did Paul choose to preach to the gentiles over the Jews? After all, he was a Pharisee and would have been familiar with the knowledge, teachings, methodologies and mistakes of his Pharasaic brothers. Thus, he would have been the best person to preach to them his interpretation of soteriology. Yet he did not do so. He left the task to James, Peter and the rest, dubbing them as the ‘super apostles’.

The real reason Paul preached to the gentiles is because they were ignorant. They did not know the Torah. They did not possess intimate knowledge of Judaism, its scripture or its doctrine.

Therefore Paul was not presenting his new religion to his own brethren because they would be able to debunk him. Due to this, logically speaking, he preached to those who would find his new faith appealing. The gentiles would not argue about Christ’s deity, or about the new doctrine of salvation, but the Jews would and vehemently so. Thus the path of least resistance is among the gentiles who would eventually see him as an authoritative figure, as opposed to the Jews who would see him as a heretic and shame him. Yet with the gentiles, he is able to avoid these problems and ascend to power and authority very quickly.

               
                    Anti-Christ Paul     

[Abdullah Smith]

Follow Jesus or Follow Paul??

The New Testament gives us a choice; either we follow Jesus Christ, or the anti-Christ Paul of Tarsus:

Each one demands his followers to accept his teachings:

Be ye followers of me … that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you. (1 Corinthians 11:1)

“If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed” (John 8:31)

Amazing, the former preached against the teachings of Jesus, and the latter, (Jesus) teaches that salvation is only attained by following him. According to Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20-21, and Micah 6:7-8, a man is responsible for his own sin.

Jesus rejected the Pauline doctrine of “vicarious atonement”. Compare the two passages below:

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
(Hebrews 9:22)

Jesus was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the
Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the blood offering of the law take away sin? And Jesus answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation. (Gospel of the Nazorenes, Lection 33, verses 1-2)

Jesus was circumcised, Paul rejected circumcision:

This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. (Genesis 17:14)

When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God commanded him. (Genesis 21:4)

And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (Exodus 12:48)

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him,
he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. (Luke 2:21)

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. (Acts 15:1)

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. (Matthew 5:19)

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. (Matthew 23:23)

The Jewish Law commands the circumcision on the eighth day. The reason why Christians are not circumcised is because they follow Paul. They have broken the covenant of Circumcision according to Jesus himself (5:19)

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. (Galatians 5:6, KJV)

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (NIV)

The Talmud states the following to those who break the Covenant:
“The one who voids the covenant of Abraham has no portion in the world to come (Avot 3:16).

Christians may not have any “portion in the world to come” because they have totally rejected the Message of Jesus, replacing the Gospel with the Gospel of Paul.

“The Christianity which the nations claim to follow is the religion of Paul, who is admittedly the chief and almost the only theologian that the Church recognizes. Because of his betrayal of the Master’s teachings, the vision of true Christianity has been so dimmed that men have been able to defend war and a host of other evils, such as flesh eating and slavery, on the authority of the Bible.” (Christ or Paul? Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore)

“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.” (ibid, Rev. V.A. Holmes Gore)

“True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology.” (Ernest Renan, Saint Paul)

“There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus…. There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul’s soul upon the soul of Jesus…. It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus… was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the
Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith. (Androcles and the Lion, George Bernard Shaw)

The Christian missionaries today are preaching the Gospel of Paul, and rejecting the Gospel of Jesus. Paul emphasized that salvation is attained through “faith and grace” which is blatantly opposite of what Jesus taught.

“Paul… did not desire to know Christ…. Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded…. What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?…. The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority…. The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.” (The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer)

“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in the literature of the day….. Paul, the founder of Christianity, the writer of half the NT, almost never quotes Jesus in his letters and writings.” (Professor Smith in his “The World Religions”, p 330)

Saul/Paul had set out initially to subvert Jesus’ teachings. Later he used his new doctrines to undermine the power of the Jewish church as well as the defied Roman Emperor. Paul sought to torpedo Judaism in its calcified form, its narrow interpretation of the Judaic law. Jesus had initiated this process but did not subvert the law. Paul had no such inhibitions; he rejected wholesale many fundamental laws of God. In the attempt Paul succeeded in undermining both the Jewish and Nazarene teachings.

He steered Christ’s teachings away from monotheism and from the Jews, (the lost sheep of Israel) and directed these teachings in a corrupted form to Non-Jews…As Jesus had not succeeded during his mission in converting the majority of his Jewish brothers and sister to his divinely inspired interpretations of Judaism, Paul ensured that after Jesus had departed, that Jews would not be temped to follow Jesus’ Teachings. To this end, Paul so adulterated Jesus’ life, purpose, mission and claims to make the new dogma (Paul’s version of Jesus’ teachings) repugnant to the Jews. (Farouk Hosein, Fundamentalism Revisited, Eniath’s Printing Company Trinidad, p. 49)

The Jewish Christians reacted strongly to Paul, they rejected his pagan ideas of the “divinity of Christ”, and they rejected the concept of the “divine sonship” of Jesus, whom they regarded as a Prophet and Messenger.

The Jewish Christians rejected Paul’s version of ‘Christ’, to them the ‘Christ’ was anointed and fully human. Many characters in the Bible were called ‘Christ’ (anointed) but they were never divine ‘god-men’. Paul changed the original meaning of this title to make it conform to the Gentile thinking. The Romans considered their Emperors to be the ‘sons of God’, or personages of the sun. Similarly, the Hindus consider their heroes to be the ‘incarnations’ of God.

“A true Jew would have immediately recognized the teaching of Jesus as a reaffirmation of what Moses had taught. But to many a pagan, it must have seemed new and strange and perhaps a little complicated.

Most of the pagans still believed in a multitude of gods who, it was thought, mixed freely with human beings, mated with them, and took part in every sphere of human life. To the common people of Greece, any description of Jesus (made by Paul) must have seemed like a description of one of their gods, and they were probably quite ready to accept Jesus in this capacity. There was always room for one more god. However, the actual teaching of Jesus negated all their gods, since it affirmed the Divine Unity”. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus: Prophet of Islam 1992 edition, p. 62)

Paul’s reasoning had two major consequences. It not only resulted in further changes being made to what Jesus had taught, but also prepared the way for completely changing people’s ideas of who Jesus was. He was being transformed from a man to a conception in people’s minds.

Divinity had been attributed to Jesus even when he was on earth by some of those who marveled at his words and miracles, and who, mistakenly, considered him to be more than a prophet.

Some of his enemies had also spread the rumor that he was the “son of God”, hoping to rouse the orthodox Jew’s anger against him for associating himself with God. Thus, even before he disappeared, there had been a tendency to obscure his true nature and ascribe godhood to Jesus. This imaginary figure of Christ, who apparently had the power to annul what Jesus had previously taught, was clearly no ordinary mortal, and, inevitably, became confused by many with God. Thus, this imaginary figure became an object of worship, and was associated with God. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, p. 70)

Maududi alludes to the deification of Jesus by the “Christians”.

The false tendencies, born of centuries of deviations, ignorance and malpractice, now took another form. Though they accepted their Prophets during their lives and practiced their teachings, after their deaths they introduced their own distorted ideas into their religions. They adopted novel methods of worshipping God; some even took to the worship of their Prophets. They made the Prophets the incarnations of God or the sons of God; some associated their Prophets with God in His Divinity. (Towards Understanding Islam, p. 39)

Jesus taught Salvation comes through Faith and Works, Paul distorted it:

Jesus taught salvation is attained by keeping the commandments, physical prayer, fasting, and observing the Law of Moses. Paul neglected these commands and distorted the Path to Salvation preached by Jesus.

Paul said that “salvation comes through faith and grace” which is exactly what the missionaries are saying today. Let us read the words of Jesus.

Fasting is commanded:
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and
fasting. (Matthew 17:21)

And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Mark 9:29)

Now in the twenty and fourth day of this month the children of Israel were assembled with fasting, and with
sackclothes, and earth upon them. (Nehemiah 9:1)

And in every province, whithersoever the king’s commandment and his decree came, [there was] great mourning among the Jews, and fasting , and weeping, and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes. (Esther 4:3)

But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing [was] sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom. (Psalms 35:13)

When I wept, [and chastened] my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach. (Psalms 69:10)

My knees are weak through fasting; and my flesh faileth of fatness. (Psalms 109:24)

Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye [even] to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: (Joel 2:12)

Christians do not fast, Muslims fast during the holy month of Ramadhan, so they must be considered the true followers of Jesus. The (only) excuse Christians have for not fasting is echoing the teachings of Paul, who discarded these laws altogether!

Physical Prayer is commanded:

The Prophets of God prayed with their forehead touching the ground. Likewise, the Muslims also pray in this manner:

And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, (Genesis 17:3)

And I bowed down my head, and worshipped the LORD, and blessed the LORD God of my master Abraham, which had led me in the right way to take my master’s brother’s daughter unto his son. (Genesis 24:48)

And he said, Nay; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What
saith my lord unto his servant? (Joshua 5:14)

And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer
and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes: (Daniel 9:3)

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt]. (Matthew 26:39)

Paul rejected these laws; he disobeyed the physical prayer to Yahweh. He distorted the prayer and directed it towards His Prophet, Jesus!

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; (Philemon 2:10)

This verse is absolutely outrageous and repulsive, totally disgusting! The Old Testament teaches that Prayer is due to God alone:

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isaiah 45:23)

It seems that Christians have abandoned this verse, following the teaching of Paul by worshipping Jesus! According to the Holy Quran, associating partners (in worship) with God is unforgivable:

Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin
Most heinous indeed. (Qur’an 4:48)

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He
createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things.” (Qur’an 5:17)

They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. (Qur’an 5:72)

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (Qur’an 5:75)

They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him). (Qur’an 9:31)

Jesus Forbade the Gentiles:

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 10:5-6)

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost
sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 15:24)

Paul rejected this command of NOT preaching to the Gentiles, they were restricted. Paul openly preached among the Gentiles, a totally different religion:

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (Romans 11:13)

Don’t be like the pagans!

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. (Matthew 6:7-8)

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. (Leviticus 20:23)

The Church Father Iranaeus condemned Paul for inventing ‘Christianity’ from pagan beliefs:

Iranaeus believed in One God and supported the doctrine of the manhood of Jesus. He bitterly criticized Paul for
being responsible for injecting doctrines of the pagan religions and Platonic philosophy into Christianity. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 77)

The pagans used to wear tattoos and eat swine, the unclean pig. The “Christians” are imitating them today:

‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:28)

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you. No Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you. (Leviticus 11:7-8)

The Bible says that decorating trees is PAGAN; this refers to the “Christmas tree”.

For the customs of the people [are] vain: for [one]
cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. (Jeremiah 10:3-4)

Paul corrupted the teachings of Jesus claiming that his supposed “sacrifice on the cross” is the only way to salvation. We have already seen how this concept is false, according to the Bible itself, and the Gospel of the Nazorenes.

After Jesus’s time, there came to be two sects of Christians: those who followed St. Paul (who is the real founder of modern Christianity) and those who followed the Apostles of Jesus. In course of time, the Pauline sect overshadowed the Apostles’ sect. So Paul’s own writings, as well as the Gospels written under his influence, came to be accepted by the later Christian Church as Scripture. The Gospels are Hellenistic religious narratives in the tradition of the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which constituted the “Scriptures” to those Greek-speaking Christians who wrote the four canonical Gospels and who appealed to it, explicitly or implicitly, in nearly every paragraph they wrote. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 16)

The New Testament was written under the influence of Paul, the four Gospel writers were Gentile converts to Pauline Christianity. Hence, there is nothing Jewish about the New Testament, it was solely written for Pauline Christians whose background was pagan.

The Hebrew Scriptures of the Nazarenes and Ebionites were destroyed by the Pauline Church. The original sayings of Jesus were lost forever. The New Testament today exists in Greek, and not Hebrew or Aramaic, the spoken tongues of Jesus.

The Gospel of Matthew seems to be the “most Jewish” book in the New Testament,

Luke was a Gentile and not eye-witness

Mark was Barnabas’s nephew and not eye-witness

John was martyred decades before the Gospel (bearing his name) was even written.

Nevertheless, the four Gospels are NOT mentioned by name before the year 190 CE. We have scholarly quotations to back this claim.

Unfortunately, the sources we have on Jesus are very scarce and scanty, Ignatius (died 110 CE) records the baptism of Jesus but he fails to record any thing else.

The Apostolic Church Fathers never mention the miracles in the Gospels; they fail to mention the four Gospels by name. The story of the “resurrection” (as told in the Gospels) was fabricated later because they fail to record it. The seven epistles of Ignatius fall into the category of silence, they speak nothing about Jesus.

Paul has written his own personal account of the “resurrection” which contradicts the Gospels. In conclusion, the Gospels are fabricated because Philo
Judaeus and many other historians fail to mention their supernatural events.

The New Testament makes it clear that nobody witnessed the “resurrection”, the disciples never witnessed the “resurrection”, they all ‘forsook him and fled’ at Gethsemane.

Paul says Jesus Christ is a mystery!

In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, (Ephesians 3:4)

Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ , for which I am also in bonds: (Colossians 4:3)

According to Paul, Jesus was not a real person; he was a spiritual conception in people’s minds:

Paul’s reasoning had two major consequences. It not only resulted in further changes being made to what Jesus had taught, but also prepared the way for completely changing people’s ideas of who Jesus was. He was being transformed from a man to a conception in people’s minds. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 70)

Paul did not care about the historical Jesus, whom he never met. He transformed Jesus into a ‘god-man’.

His reluctance to say very much at all about Jesus the man, in his letters, he quoted hardly any of the sayings of Jesus, in his apostleship to the Gentiles. Jesus, according to the flesh that is historical Jesus, did not serve his purpose.

Pauline Christology has only minimally to do with the actual historical Jesus. Hence, the faith in Christ as held by primitive preaching led by Paul was something new in comparison with the preaching of Jesus, it was a new type of religion based god-man of Pagan Religion.
(The Hijacking of Christianity, Al Haj A.D. Ajijola, p. 4)

PAUL EXPOSED

As we’ve seen, Paul, the founder of Christianity, rejected the message of Jesus (and everything he stood for) while replacing the Gospel with his own distorted version.

The message of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was pure and simple, the complete submission and surrender to God alone. He preached the religion of Islam; he fasted and prayed in the manner taught by the Prophets before him. He abstained from eating pork and drinking wine.

Paul rejected these laws and concocted his own religion, claiming “salvation comes through faith only” (sound familiar?) and not physical action or bodily prayer.

The Bible teaches the exact opposite, the stories of the Prophets teach us that salvation is attained through fasting, physical prayer, and righteous deeds, not just having faith, which is merely an article required in any
organized religion.

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone . (James 2:17)

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? (James 2:21-22)

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (James 2:24)

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:26)

The Holy Quran harmonizes these verses by teaching that salvation is attained through faith and works:

Those who believe, and do deeds of righteousness, and establish regular prayers and regular charity, will have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (Holy Qur’an 2:227)

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing. (Holy Qur’an 2:177)

Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we appointed twelve captains among them. And Allah said: “I am with you: if ye (but) establish regular prayers, practice regular charity, believe in my messengers , honor and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan, verily I will wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath; but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, he hath truly wandered from the path or rectitude.” (Holy Qur’an 5:12)

And convey good news to those who believe and do good deeds, that they shall have gardens in which rivers flow; whenever they shall be given a portion of the fruit thereof, they shall say: This is what was given to us before; and they shall be given the like of it, and they shall have pure mates in them, and in them, they shall abide. (Holy Qur’an 2:25)

And when it is said to them: Believe as the people believe they say: Shall we believe as the fools believe? Now surely they themselves are the fools, but they do not know. (Holy Qur’an 2:13)

FASTING:

O you who believe ! fasting is prescribed for you , as it was prescribed for those before you, so that you may guard (against evil). (Holy Qur’an 2:83)

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. (Matthew 4:1-2)

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and
fasting. (Matthew 17:21)

PHYSICAL PRAYER:

And when We made the House (at Makkah) a resort for mankind and sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood (to pray). And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house for those who go around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship). (Holy Qur’an 2:125)

Those that turn (to Allah) in repentance; that serve Him, and praise Him; that wander in devotion to the cause of Allah,: that bow down and prostrate themselves in prayer; that enjoin good and forbid evil; and observe the limit set by Allah;- (These do rejoice). So proclaim the glad tidings to the Believers (Holy Qur’an 9:112)

Come, let us bow down in worship , let us kneel before the LORD our Maker; (Psalms 95:6)

And I bowed down my head, and worshipped the LORD, and blessed the LORD God of my master Abraham, which had led me in the right way to take my master’s brother’s daughter unto his son. (Genesis 24:48)

And the people believed: and when they heard that the
LORD had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped. (Exodus 4:31)

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him , saying, As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. (Genesis 17:1-4)

And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen. (Revelations 7:11-12)

And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the Lord until eventide, he and the elders of Israel , and put dust upon their heads. And Joshua said, Alas, O Lord God, wherefore hast Thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? Would to God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side of the
Jordan! (Joshua 7:6-7 )

And Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they fell upon their faces: and the glory of the Lord appeared unto them. ( Numbers 20:6 )

Jesus (Prophet ‘Eesa alayhissalaam) rejected that salvation can be attained through blood sacrifice and ‘faith only-ism’

I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matthew 9:13)

But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. (Matthew 12:7)

” The law teachers and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ chair. This means you’re supposed to observe and follow everything they tell you. But don’t do what they do;
after all, they’re all talk and no action.”  (Matthew 23:2)

Christianity is “all talk and no action” exactly what Christian missionaries are preaching today, the Pauline law of lawlessness! The following verse hammers the nail:

Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9, NIV)

Because if you acknowledge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in, and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (The Amplified Bible)

Islam is a Religion of action; Christianity is a religion of fabulous words. It does not have the answers to the problems of mankind. Islam superiorly has the solutions to the problems of mankind, the social corruptions in the society.

Islam demands a very high standard of morality which fixes the problems of the world. It’s is a Challenge to religion; a complete system of Life. The lawlessness of Christianity cannot be denied, since Christianity is based on emotions and not history.

Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) taught the very opposite of what Christianity teaches today. The purpose of Jesus’ mission was to preach the Torah, not to be crucified. He taught salvation came through observing the Law, and not by the ‘eloquent words’ of the later Church. Jesus declared in Matthew 17:21 that salvation is attained through “fasting and prayer”.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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. 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. (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have
come.” (Mark 1:38)

The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple. (Psalms 19:7)

Blessed [are] the undefiled in the way, who walk in the
law of the LORD. (Psalms 119:1)

Jesus came to uphold the Mosaic Law and restore its teachings which had been discarded; he never founded a new religion. The followers of Jesus regarded him as the ‘new Moses’ sent to the Children of Israel. Jesus declared he was only sent to the Jews.

Paul is the founder of Christianity who established lawlessness; the doctrine of “salvation through faith only” is simply an echoing of Paul’s words and distorted teachings.

Christians are following the anti-Christ without knowing it.

“If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they need look no further than Paul”
— The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in the literature of the day….. Paul, the founder of Christianity , the writer of half the NT, almost never quotes Jesus in his letters and writings.” (Professor Smith in his “The World Religions”, p 330)

Paul rejected the Jewish Law (Torah) and fabricated a religion called “Christianity” which deviated from the teachings of Jesus, transforming him into a god.

“Although I am free from everyone, I have enslaved myself to all of them in order to win a larger number. To the Jews I behave as a Jew; to those under the Law as one who is under the Law, although I am not under the Law, to gain those who are under the Law. To those who are without law I am without law, although not lawless toward God but committed to Christ’s Law, in order to win those who are without law” (1 Corinthians 9:19)

Paul is a liar, he claims to follow the Law of Christ when the Law of Christ was the observance of the Torah (Matthew 5:17-20) the very Law that he strongly rejected! The hypocrisy of Paul is further exposed in the following verse:

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my
lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? (Romans 3:7, King James Version)

But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? (English Standard Version)

But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? (American Standard Version)

Muhammad Ataur-Raheem comments on the verse above:

“It would seem from this statement that, although he knew he was lying, Paul felt that the means justified the ends, but it is not understood how truth would abound through a lie…
Paul produced a religion which encompassed different contradictory elements. He took the Unitarianism of the Jews and added to it the philosophy of the pagans”. (Jesus: Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 71)

Paul is the anti-Christ, the supreme liar, the pathological liar, and the corrupter of Jesus’ Gospel. The Jewish Christians (Nazarenes and Ebionites) considered him an ‘apostate’ from Judaism, yet historical accounts say that he was born Gentile.

The author Roshen Enam says:
“Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (pbuh), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”. (Follow Jesus or Follow Paul p. 69)

“The message of Christianity is that the Law is a curse. If the Law is a curse, then all that it ordains or prohibits must also be a curse.” (A.D. Ajijola states in his book “The Myth of the Cross”)

Amazingly, Paul went to such extremes that he claimed Jesus destroyed the Jewish Law!
“He (Jesus) brought the hostility to an end, by abolishing the Law of commandments with its regulations”. (Ephesians 2:14)

Needless to say, the passage contradicts Matthew 5:17-20 where Jesus specifically states that he came to preach the Law, not to destroy it.

Paul gave evidence that he was building a new religion, a complete deviation from Jesus’ teachings:

Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation: (Romans 15:20)

What is Paul implying here?? Muhammad Ataur-Raheem gives us the answer:

If Paul had been spreading the original teaching of Jesus, then “another man’s foundation” would have been the same as his. They would both have been involved in building the same structure. The people who were hearing about Jesus, or rather Christ, for the first time from Paul’s lips, had no means of comparing his account with that of the Apostles who still held to Jesus’ teaching. Paul’s version was the only one to which they had access. (ibid, Jesus Prophet of Islam)

Paul was developing a new religion under the doctrines he was fabricating According to Acts, Paul traveled to Arabia for three years:

Paul then left Damascus and, instead of seeking out the company of the other followers of Jesus, went into the Arabian Desert where he remained hidden for three years. It may well have been here that he began to formulate his own version of what Jesus had taught. This involved a rejection of the Jewish Law, which in turn meant his turning away from the fact that throughout his life Jesus had remained a practicing Jew, and always sought to uphold the teachings which Moses had brought before him. (Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition)

“In the solitude of the Arabian desert, he had marked out a course of action for himself in which he would not accept any interference or advice. Had he discussed this matter with the apostles or taken any of them into his confidence, it would mean a definite setback to his scheme of preaching a modified religion to the Gentiles. The apostles would have very strongly opposed the whole idea, and would have denounced the whole idea as an abomination. There is ample proof provided by the New Testament that the Disciples and the earliest followers of Jesus abhorred the innovations of Paul.
(A.D. Ajijola states in his book “The Myth of the Cross”)

Paul corrupted the Gospel of Jesus and replaced it, as the scholar Albert Schweitzer points out:

What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus? The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority…. The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.”
(Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus)

“The Christian beliefs formulated by St. Paul are unreasonable and repugnant to the conscience of man; such beliefs cannot expect any reasonable allegiance from the advanced nations of the world as it is a religion of primitive people. The whole of modern Christian doctrines was not formulated by Jesus, but by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans where he laid the foundation of Modern Christian doctrines and based his exposition on the heathen practices of his day.” (A.D. Ajijola states in his book “ The Myth of the Cross”)

Paul was disguising the true face of Jesus with a hideous mask; this ‘mask’ later became known as “Christianity”. It is mysterious that Jesus was transformed into God ‘incarnate’ when Moses, his twin predecessor was not.

I have inquired into some of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; the examination has led me to the conclusion that the dogmas of the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus, the Divine-Sonship, the Original Sin and Atonement are neither rational nor in conformity with the teachings of Jesus. These dogmas came into being and were due to pagan influences. They show that Christianity has departed considerably from the religion of Jesus.
(A.D. Ajijola states in his book “The Myth of the Cross”)

In the preface to the book Jesus: Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ataur-Raheem says:

An eminent scholar of Christian history admits that the present-day Christianity is a “mask” on the face of Jesus but goes on to say that a mask worn for a long time acquires a life of its own and it has to be accepted as such. The Muslim believes in the Jesus of history and refuses to accept the “mask”. This, in a nutshell, has been the point of difference between Islam and the Church for the last fourteen hundred years.

“I am convinced that Christianity has indeed misunderstood Jesus and that it needs to make a radical rediscovery of his person and message” (Tom Harper, by Akberally Meherally, Understanding the Bible through Koranic Messages)

A basic contrast between the Old Testament and the teachings of Paul reveal hundreds of contradictions. Paul established his own Church which later became the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ (sound familiar?).

James, the brother of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam), established the first ‘Church’ at Jerusalem (in 50 CE) before Pauline Christianity existed. It was sadly destroyed by the Pauline Church after the Jewish War (66-70 C.E.) and the Nazarenes were suppressed by the followers of Paul.

The Pauline “Christians” that exist today do not follow Christ, they should be called Paulians. The true Christians were the Nazarenes and Ebionites that no longer exist.

Paul degraded Jesus in the following verses:

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, (Hebrews 6:1, English Standard Version)

Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, (Hebrews 6:1, 21st Century King James Version)

Paul emphasized that Christ was not perfect (na’audhubillah), hence his teachings should be discarded, because according to Paul, they are like ‘filthy and useless rags’ (Isaiah 64:6) and we must excel towards “perfection and maturity”. The deceptive editors changed the English translation of Paul’s damaging words. This outrageous statement has been softened in many other versions of the Bible:

So let us stop going over the basics of Christianity again and again. Let us go on instead and become mature in our understanding. Surely we don’t need to start all over again with the importance of turning away from evil deeds and placing our faith in God. (Hebrews 5:7. New Living Translation)

We must try to become mature and start thinking about more than just the basic things we were taught about Christ. We shouldn’t need to keep talking about why we ought to turn from deeds that bring death and why we ought to have faith in God. (Hebrews 5:7, Contemporary English Version)

The convert to Islam, Dr. Roshan Enam, comments:

“Paul not only distorted the teachings of Jesus Christ (Nabi ‘Eesa alayhissalaam) he even dishonored them; arguing that Jesus gave immature and defective teachings to his followers, and that they were not worth following. Instead, the people should follow the teachings preached by Paul, which according to him, are mature and complete” (Follow Jesus or Follow Paul, p. 38)

As mentioned earlier, Paul established the doctrine of lawlessness, which is the great cause for our social corruptions. The Christian religion gave birth to diseases like fascism and communism:

Christianity has been most prolific of spawning “isms”. Atheism, Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Nazism, Mormonism, Moonism, Christian Scientism and now Satanism. What else will Christianity give birth to? (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?)

Jesus (‘Eesa alayhossalaam) observed the laws of the Torah, but Paul changed the Gospel, corrupting it before it reached Europe.

“Paul deviated people towards lawlessness, through his strange philosophy that, the observance of the Law motivates to sin, thus justifying his innovation regarding the abolition of the Law” (ibid, p. 42)

“…not a single human being will be made righteous in God’s sight through observance of the Law. For through the Law comes the knowledge of sin”. (Romans 3:20)

“Christ has ransomed us from the curse of the Law in as much as He became a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13)

“the Scripture has all men imprisoned under sin” (Galatians 3:22)

What Paul invented was a great misconception. Purpose of revelations from God Almighty is never to mislead the people, or to induce them with sin, instead, they are always for the guidance of mankind. With the same purpose, the Law of commandments were revealed to prophet Moses (Nabi Musa alayhissalaam), and in later age, prophet Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was to sent to confirm and honor them, and finally to complete them, but not to abolish them (ibid, p. 42)

According to Jesus (Qur’anic ‘Eesa alayhissalaam), the lawless ones will be thrown in Hell. (This includes all Christians)

“So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:40-42 New American Standard Bible)

“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE
LAWLESSNESS.’ (Matthew 7:23, New American Standard Bible)

For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. (Mark 9:49)

“So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:28)

Christians are indeed hypocrites, they ignore the practical teachings of the Bible and discard the Jewish Law followed by Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20, 23:23) they practice what is called ‘selective morality’ and ignore the teachings of the Gospels, paying close attention to the epistles of Paul (only).

Christians adhering to Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) do not exist:

· Jesus commanded fasting (Matthew 4:2, 6:16) yet Christians do not fast.

· Jesus abstained from eating pork and drinking wine (Leviticus 10:9, 11:7, Matthew 5:17-20) yet Christians practice the exact opposite, they eat pork and drink wine! Paul said it was okay to drink wine 1Timothy 5:23.

· Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day of infancy (Luke 1:59) yet Christians are not circumcised like Jesus. This equates to death penalty (see: Genesis 17:14)

· Jesus established the death penalty for those who abandon his teachings (John 15:6) yet Christians have abandoned his teaching but they are not being punished accordingly! The governments of Christian countries reject the Jewish Law because of the innovations of Paul. (He made everything permissible for them!)

· Jesus observed the Sabbath, (which is Saturday) yet Christians have broken this law by working on the Sabbath. This equates to death penalty (see: Exodus 31:14)

The laws which exist in the “Christian” countries of the West, the laws governing birth and death, the formation and dissolution of marriage, the rights over property within and outside marriage or in the event of divorce or death, adoption and guardianship, commerce, and industry, are not to be found in the gospels. They are not the laws which have been revealed to man by God. They are the fruits of deductive knowledge. They are either inherited from the Roman system of law, or are based on the common practice of people over a long period of time, or are statutes erected and amended in accordance with the democratic method, which is the bequest of the ancient Greeks. No one in today’s courts of law can refer to the gospels as a binding authority in his dealings with another man, and have it accepted.
(Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 205)

Jesus said his true followers will enter Paradise, those who follow his teachings.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; (John 8:31)

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. (John 10:26-29)

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Matthew 7:26-27)

The outright foolishness of Christians cannot be denied, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) rebukes today’s ‘adherents’ who boldly call themselves “Christian”.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46)

“I do not accept praise from men, (John 5:41)

The authentic Hadith says:

I heard the Prophet saying, “Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle.”
Narrated ‘Umar
Bukhari, Muhammad, “Sahih Bukhari”, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 1987, translated by M. Khan, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654.

The Holy Quran says:

Say: “O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by, – who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way. (Holy Qur’an 5:77)

From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. (Holy Qur’an 5:14)

The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (Holy Qur’an 9:30)

As stated earlier, the teachings of Jesus were based on the Law, yet the Law is rejected by Christians today, so how could they be called Christians??

Moreover, the “Christians” do not follow the Gospel of Jesus; they follow the Gospel of Paul. The Nazarenes and Ebionties were followers of Jesus’ Gospel, which no longer exists today.

Nevertheless, the “Christians” of today are not implementing the teachings of their “lord and savior” (see John 8:31) The Nazarenes/Ebionites never degraded Jesus by calling him “lord and savior”; they considered him a great Prophet and Messenger.
There is so much diversity and clash, so much chaos, in the Christian Church today that the old idea of a unified or systematic Christian truth has gone. For this, the ecumenical movement is too late. What has happened is that the Christian world has moved into that situation of open variety, of optional alternatives. It would seem no longer possible for anyone to be told or even to imagine that he can be told, what it means or should mean, formally and generically, to be a Christian. He must decide for himself and only for himself (Christianity on Trial, I, Colin Chapman, pp. 51-52)

The act of affirming what is in the Old Testament, and the gospels for that matter, and at the same time affirming belief in the doctrine of Trinity, is perhaps the greatest illustration of the exercise of doublethink within Christianity today. Thus the logic of the established Church’s metaphysic, based on doctrines which were not taught by Jesus, obscures not only the nature of Jesus, but also the Divine Unity. The metaphysic of Christianity today is totally opposed to the metaphysic which Jesus brought. The physical aspect of what Jesus brought, his code of behaviour, is today irrecoverably lost. To live as Jesus lived is to understand his message, yet there is virtually no existing record of how Jesus behaved. And what little knowledge exists is often ignored. The most fundamental act of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was that of worship of the Creator, the whole purpose for which man was created. Yet it is evident that no Christian today makes the same acts of worship which Jesus made. Jesus usually prayed in the morning, at mid-day, and in the evening. The exact form of his prayer is no longer extant, but it known that is was based on the prayer which Moses was given. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) said that he had come to uphold the law and not to destroy it one jot or one tithe. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was educated in the synagogue in Jerusalem from the age of twelve. He preached in the synagogue. He used to keep the synagogue clean. No Christian today can be found performing these actions. How many Christians have even been circumcised in the manner that Jesus was? The services now held in today’s churches were developed long after Jesus had disappeared. Many of them come directly from the pagan Greeco-Roman mythological rites. The prayers they use are not the prayers which Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) made. The hymns they sing are not the praises which Jesus sung. Due to the innovations of Paul and his followers, there is no revealed teaching left as to what to eat and what not to eat. Anyone given a “Christian education” today eats what he feels like. Yet Jesus and his true followers only ate kosher meat and were forbidden to eat pig’s flesh. The last meal Jesus is known to have eaten before his disappearance was the Passover meal. No Christian today celebrates this longstanding Jewish tradition to which Jesus so meticulously held.
(Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus, Prophet of Islam, pp. 199-200)

In the preceding arguments, I have inquired into some of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; the examination has led me to the conclusion that the dogmas of the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus, the Divine-Sonship, the Original Sin and Atonement are neither rational nor in conformity with the teachings of Jesus.
These dogmas came into being and were due to pagan influences. They show that Christianity has departed considerably from the religion of Jesus . (A.D. Ajijola states in his book “The Myth of the Cross”)

Unfortunately, the observance of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) is not possible today because his teachings have been seriously corrupted and altered. The scholars of “Christianity” admit that they do not possess the original manuscripts from which we can derive the authentic words of Jesus. Hence, the only way to follow Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) today is by following Islam:

He who follows Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) automatically follows the true Jesus’ teachings:

“The guidance imparted through the Prophets of the past was not complete. Every Prophet was followed by another who effected alterations and additions in the teachings and injunctions of his predecessors and, in this way, the chain of reform and progress continued. That is why the teachings of the earlier Prophets, after the lapse of time, were lost in oblivion . Obviously there was no need to preserve the earlier teachings when amended and improved guidance had taken their place. At last the most perfect code of guidance was imparted to mankind through Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and all previous codes were automatically abrogated, for it is futile and imprudent to follow an incomplete code when the complete code exists. He who follows Propher Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) follows all the Prophets , for whatever was good and eternally workable in their teachings has been embodied in his teachings. Whoever, therefore, rejects and refuses to follow Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) teachings, and chooses to follow some other Prophet, only deprives himself of that vast amount of useful and valuable instruction and guidance which is embodied in Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) teachings, which never existed in the books of the earlier Prophets and which was revealed only through the Last of the Prophets”
(Towards Understanding Islam, p. 79)

Christian Missionaries using the same tool which Paul used: Deception

Paul has been denounced by theologians and scholars throughout history, the hatred which he incited by his teachings against the Jewish Law, and the political support he gave to the Roman emperors, show how desperate he was to destroy the Nazarene sect, the followers of the early Jesus movement, known as The Way (Acts 9:2, 19:23) Paul’s claim to being Pharisaic is lying of the highest order. Paul was a Gnostic by the style of his own literature! He persecuted the followers of Jesus to please the heart of Popea, but when he failed; he burst into rage, inventing “Christianity” by preaching against the Jewish Law and the doctrines. He produced Christianity for the sole purpose of converting Gentiles. In order to win Gentiles, he became like a Gentile, to win Jews, he became like a Jew. The verse reads:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. (1 Corinthians 9:19-21)

This Pauline deceptive tactic is vigorously being used today. In Africa, for example, the mosques are constructed to resemble churches, so Muslims are deceived into entering the church, believing that it’s a mosque.

Building churches that look similar to mosques: Muslims were turned off from entering churches because they looked different, that also made them feel very uncomfortable with them. They also changed the internal structure of the church to look similar to a mosque; the people sit on the floor and in lines.
(Christian Missionaries Sweeping the Islamic World, Sheikh Salman Al-Odeh)

This is practical evidence that Christians follow Paul, not Jesus. The blatant deception to deceive unwary Muslims is directly inspired from 1 Corinthians 9:19-21.

Another example demonstrates how a Christian tries to imitate a fasting Muslim, trying to “win her” in accordance with Paul’s teachings.

I decided to ask Sarah to my fellowship group. But she said no. She didn’t think Christians would accept her. It was important to her that Christians respect her beliefs and get to know her as a person, instead of just dismissing her because she was a Muslim. I decided I would remain her friend and keep telling her about Jesus.

During the term, the Muslim Holy Month of Ramadan began. Sarah explained to me that it was their month of fasting. Suddenly it dawned on me: This was my opportunity to show Sarah I accepted her and really wanted her to know Christ.

“I’m fasting today,” I told Sarah one morning about a week into the fasting period.

“Why?” she asked.

“I just want to fast with you,” I answered.

She stared at me in disbelief. I’ve been told that Muslims often asked their friends to offer encouragement by fasting with them. But at our boarding school, no one wanted to give up their already meager share of food. Sarah had not even asked me. She thought since I was a Christian, I would have nothing to do with a Muslim tradition.

“Why are you fasting with me when you are a Christian?” Sarah asked me later. I told her I didn’t think there was anything wrong with fasting, and I was only doing it to show her that I accepted her and respected her religion.
(Read the story at http://www.christianitytoday.com/cl/2000/001/8.54.html )

The Pagan roots of Christianity cannot be denied, Christians only fast because they want to “win Muslims”. They don’t fast because the Bible commands it.

Muslims are not encouraged to become deceived; they fast only to “win Muslims” is the sheer embodiment of Paul’s teachings. Is there any greater evidence to show they follow Paul, the corrupter of the Gospel??

It was Thomas Jefferson who said: “Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the Gospel of Jesus”.

The Contradictions

(1) Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (Romans 3:20)

Contradicted by:

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Romans 2:13)

(2) Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Galatians 6:2)

Contradicted by:

For each one should carry his own load. (Galatians 6:5)

(3) For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, (1 Peter 3:18)

Contradicted by:

The wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the traitor for the upright. (Proverbs 21:18)

(4) Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Hebrews 13:4)

Contradicted by:

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. (1 Corinthians 7:28)

(5) No man hath seen God at any time . If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. (1 John 4:12)

Contradicted by:

I saw the LORD standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered. (Amos 9:1)

(6) If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom: (Job 31:33)

Contradicted by:

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1Timothy 2:14)

* The verse says that Adam sinned, yet the New Testament says that Adam did not sin, but only Eve sinned.

According to Jesus, Paul was a hypocrite:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites ! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. (Matthew 23:13)

Compared with:

Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.” (Acts 23:6)

Paul wants people to be sinners!

I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 1 Corinthians 7:6-7

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners— of whom I am the worst. (1 Tim. 1:15)

Paul testifies there is nothing good in him:

More Contradictions

(1) Full God or Emptied God:

“Christ Jesus who, though existing in the form of God, did not consider his equality with God something to cling to, but emptied Himself as he took on the form of a slave” (Philippians 2:6)

Contradicted by:

“For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell (Colossians 1:19)

(2) God or Mediator or None:

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5)

Contradicted by:

“But there is no call for an intermediary in case of one, and God is one” (Galatians 3:20)

(3) The Law Abolished or the Law Upheld:

He brought the hostility to an end, by abolishing: the Law of commandments with its regulations” (Ephesians 2:14)

Contradicted by:

Do we then overthrow the Law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the Law.” (Romans 3:31)

(4) Righteousness; with the Law or without the Law:

not a single human being will be made righteous in God’s sight through observance of the Law” (Romans 3:20)

Contradicted by:

For not the hearers of the Law are righteous before God but those who practice the Law will be pronounced righteous” (Romans 2:13)

(5) Salvation; by Confession or by Deeds:

if you confess with your lips the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9)

Contradicted by:

For he (God) will repay according to each one’s deeds; to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life” (Romans 2:6)
(Source: Roshan Enam, Follow Jesus or Follow Paul? p. 65-55)

(6) Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. (Acts 10:34-35)

Contradicted by:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation , a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)

Most Greek-speaking authors heard these traditions in the Aramaic vernacular and committed them to writing in Greek. None of these writings is dated prior to the year 70 C.E.; there is not a single instance in these works where the author has cited an authority for an event or maxim attributed to Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) in order that we might construct a chain of transmission.

Furthermore, even their works have not survived. Thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were collected, but none of them is older than the fourth century C.E.; rather the origin of most of them does not go beyond the period intervening between the 11th and the 14th centuries.

“The real death of a Prophet consists not in his physical demise but in the ending of the influence of his teachings. The earlier Prophets have died because their followers have adulterated their teachings, distorted their instructions, and besmirched their life-examples by attaching fictitious events to them” (ibid, Maududi, Towards Understanding Islam, p. 57)

“The original copies of the New Testament books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and perishable material. In the second place, and probably of even more importance, the original copies of the New Testament books were not looked upon as scripture by those of the early Christian communities.” [George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 1, pp. 599 (Under Text, NT).]

Paul and his Pagan teachings had nothing at all to do with the Original Message of Jesus

The book of Acts demonstrates that Paul was preaching very similar doctrines to the pagans.

They professed to believe in the blood sacrifice (crucifixion) and resurrection of their own god-men before Paul had arrived, as the following passage indicates:

Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. (Acts 17:17-18)

The Gentiles already knew the stories of dying and rising gods before Paul came to them, he was only recycling the legends of the Mystery Religions.

“The divine teacher is called, is tested by the “adversary”, gathers disciples, heals the sick, preaches the Good News about God’s kingdom, finally runs afoul of his bitter enemies, suffers, dies, and is resurrected after three days. This is the total pattern of the sun god in all the ancient dramas”. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 145)

“A true Jew would have immediately recognized the teaching of Jesus as a reaffirmation of what Moses had taught. But to many a pagan, it must have seemed new and strange and perhaps a little complicated. Most of the pagans still believed in a multitude of gods who, it was thought, mixed freely with human beings, mated with them, and took part in every sphere of human life. To the common people of Greece, any description of Jesus must have seemed like a description of one of their gods, and they were probably quite ready to accept Jesus in this capacity . There was always room for one more god. However, the actual teaching of Jesus negated all their gods, since it affirmed the Divine Unity”. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus: Prophet of Islam 1992 edition, p. 62)

It is commonly supposed that religious honors were paid to the sun as a deity by a few isolated peoples or sects, such as the Parsees and the ancient Ghebers of Persia, and some African tribes. In correction of this view we are prepared to support the declaration that the worship of the Sun-god was quite universal in the ancient world. It ranged from China and India to Yucatan and
Peru. The Emperor and the Mikado, as well as the Incas, and the Pharaohs were Sun-god figures. And is the belief only an empty myth?? So far from being such, it is at once the highest embodiment of religious conception in the spiritual history of the race. Likewise in the ancient Mystery dramas the central character was ever the Sun-god the role being enacted by the candidate for initiation in person. He went through the several initiations as himself the type and representative of the solar divinity in the field of human experience…These Sun-god characters, of none of whom can it be said positively that they were living personages, were, it must be clearly noted, purely typical figures in the national epics of the several nations. (The Great Myth of the Sun-gods, Alvin Boyd Kuhn)

These ‘saviors’ who died and resurrected after three days were symbols of the sun, and these fables (or fairytales) were borrowed by the Church and attributed to Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) after his departure. Thus, Jesus became the Sun of God before the ‘Son of God’, both titles are pagan.
The early Jewish Christians (Nazarenes and Ebionites) did not believe Jesus was God, or the ‘son of God’.

The Christian conception is a distorted one, it teaches that Jesus was crucified on the ‘cross’ for the sins of other men, and resurrected on the third day. This story is not different from what we find in the Mystery Religions.

“The worship of suffering gods was to be found on all sides, and the belief in the torture of the victims in the rites of human sacrifice for the redemption from sin was very general. The gods Osiris, Attis, Adonis,
Dionysos, Herakles, Prometheus, and others, had all suffered for mankind; and thus the Servant of Yahweh was also conceived as having to be wounded for’ men’s transgressions. But as I say, this conception had passed into the background in the days of Jesus”
(The Paganism in Our Christiantiy, Arthur Weigall, 1928, p106)

The Roman/Greek/Egyptian gods were sacrificed for the ‘sins of mankind’ and resurrected on the third day. There is a tradition that Krishna was also crucified (yet upon a tree) to deliver his people from sin. worked the same miracles of dieing and raising, they were both “incarnations” as well.

The true genesis of Pauline Pagan Christianity lies in ancient India. It is the life of Kristna in the Bagavad Gita over 5000 years ago that we can look for the prototype of Christ. We can also find 180 similarities between the life of the Egyptian god Horus in the Book of the Dead, written in 1700BC. Both of these gods reformed the corrupt rule of the priesthood of their time and had them thrown out of the temples and instituted a system of worship and spirituality so pure that we see millions rushing to find these truths today in foreign countries.

When he was sixteen, Krishna left his mother to spread his new teaching throughout India. He spoke out against corruption among the people and the princes, everywhere supported the weak against oppression and declared that he had come to Earth to release people from suffering and sin, to drive out the spirit of evil, and to restore the rule of righteousness. He overcame tremendous difficulties, fought alone against entire armies, performed a wide range of miracles, raised the dead to life, healed lepers, gave sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf, and made the lame walk .

Paul created a doctrine about “salvation through the cross” while discarding the teachings of Jesus in its totality.

He established the falsehood that “faith in the resurrection” is the way to salvation while totally rejecting the sayings of Jesus (Matthew 9:13, 12:7, Hosea 6:6, Micah 8:7-8)

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:14-17)

“…the doctrine of resurrection on which many Christian scholars’ belief hangs, is the sole work of Saint Paul as there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus himself on this issue.”
(Alhaj AD Ajijola, Myth of the Cross,)

The Old Testament teaches that ‘human sacrifice’ is wrong, and the verses Job 7:9, 14:14, Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 deny the resurrection!

[As] the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no [more]. (Job 7:9)

Christianity Pagan Beliefs Before Jesus

The ‘human sacrifice’ is entirely a pagan ritual which dates back thousands of years. Jesus could not have been a ‘human sacrifice’ on the cross because the practice was pagan and not Jewish. The Jews believed they’d crucified Jesus to prove he was false, yet God saved Jesus from the cross (Psalms 20:6) to disprove the notion that Jesus was accursed (Deu 13:5, 21:23)

The pagans used to sacrifice human beings for the “redemption of sins”. According to the Gospel of the Nazorenes, Jesus rejected the doctrine of vicarious atonement.

“The worship of suffering gods was to be found on all sides, and the belief in the torture of the victims in the rites of human sacrifice for the redemption from sin was very general.
(The Paganism in Our Christiantiy, Arthur Weigall, 1928, p106)

Jesus was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the
Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the blood offering of the law take away sin? And Jesus answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation. (Gospel of the Nazorenes, lection 33)

Blood sacrifice is the oldest and most universal act of piety. The offering of animals, including the human animal, dates back at least twenty thousand years, and, depending on how you read the scanty archaeological evidence, arguably back to the earliest appearance of humanity. Many religions recount the creation of man through the bloody sacrifice of a God-man –a divinity who is torn apart to sow the seeds of humanity. (Patrick
Tierney , The Highest Altar: The Story of Human Sacrifice, quoted in Acharya’s Suns of God)

This is very similar to Christianity, which teaches that Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was the ‘god-man’ that took away the “sins of mankind”, a doctrine foreign to the Jewish mind!

During the 4th century, the cult Christianity was made the official “religion” of the Roman Empire, and Constantine was the political leader of the Church based in Rome. He introduced the pagan doctrine of ‘trinity’ at the Council of Nicea, and he changed the Sabbath (originally held on Saturday shifted to Sun-day) for the commemoration of the sun-god.

The ancient Christian monuments, from which I have drawn my facts and illustrations, reveal so many obvious adaptations from the Pagan mythology and art, that it became necessary for me to investigate anew the Pagan symbolism: and this will account for the frequent comparisons instituted, and the parallels drawn between Christianity and Paganism. Many of the Pagan symbols, therefore, are necessarily used in this work–such, for instance, as seem to be types of Christian verities, like
Agni, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, Apollo, and Orpheus. Hence I have drawn largely from the most ancient Pagan religions of India, Chaldea, Persia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, and somewhat from the old Aztec religion of
Mexico. These religions were all, indeed, systems of idolatry, perversions and corruptions of the one primeval truth as held by such patriarchs as Abraham and Job; and yet these religions contained germs of this truth which it became the province of Christianity to develop and embody in a purer system for the good of mankind.

It is a most singular and astonishing fact sought to be developed in this work, that the Christian faith, as embodied in the Apostles’ Creed, finds its parallel, or dimly foreshadowed counterpart, article by article, in the different systems of Paganism here brought under review. (Lundy, quoted in Acharya’s Suns of God)

The earth-shattering statement:
That which is known as the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist, from the beginning of the human race until the time when Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed began to be called Christianity.” (St. Augustine, Retractationes 1.12.3)

“The religion published by Jesus Christ to all nations is neither new nor strange…For though, without controversy we are of late, and the name of Christians is indeed new; yet our manner of life and the principles of our religion have not been lately devised by us, but were instituted and observed….from the beginning of the world, by good men, accepted by God; from those natural notions which are implanted in men’s minds”.
(Eusebius of Caesarea, 260-340 CE)

“The Christian religion contains nothing but what Christians hold in common with the heathen; nothing new” (Greek philosopher Celsus,)
The above quotations are derived from Tom Harper’s book The Pagan Christ. He further states on page 29:

The evidence of close similarities between Christianity and other ancient world faiths is massive, detailed, extremely specific, and quite incredibly far-flung, stretching from the Vedic wisdom of India to the Norse myths of Scandinavia, the legends of the Incas, and the original spirituality of the indigenous peoples of North America.

These are false charges against Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) which Islam clears away. The true version of Jesus can be found in the Holy Qur’an. What the Qur’an says about Jesus is supported by the Bible itself. The Bible requires the acceptance of Islam.

Below are quotations against Paul:

“If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they need look no further than Paul”
— The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in the literature of the day….. Paul, the founder of Christianity, the writer of half the NT, almost never quotes Jesus in his letters and writings.” (Professor Smith in his “The World Religions”, p 330)

“Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ….. Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ.”
–Will Durant (Philosopher)

“Paul’s words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference.”
–Bishop John S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark. (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)

“Paul insists that there is only one ‘gospel of Christ’ (Galatians 1:7), so why did later Christians accept as ‘Scripture’ four written gospels?”
–Graham N. Stanton, “The Gospels and Jesus”, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), p.125

The following quotations are summarized:

I have inquired into some of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; the examination has led me to the conclusion that the dogmas of the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus, the Divine-Sonship, the Original Sin and Atonement are neither rational nor in conformity with the teachings of Jesus. These dogmas came into being and were due to pagan influences. They show that Christianity has departed considerably from the religion of Jesus. (The Myth of the Cross, Alhaj A.D. Ajijola)

This mysterious disappearance of Jesus could certainly be put to an advantageous purpose. Moreover, it was commonly known that Jesus was born of a virgin mother though many were skeptical about it. Paul turned all these ideas to his own advantage and concocted the theory of sonship. (ibid, Alhaj A.D. Ajijola)

“Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”
(Thomas Jefferson, The Great Thoughts by George Sildes,
Ballantine Books, New York, 1985, p.208)

“Where possible he (Paul) avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the ‘Our Father.’ Even where they are
specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord .”
(Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, p. 171)

“What kind of authority can there be for an ‘apostle’ who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus’ own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus….He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears.” ( Ferdinand Christian
Baur , Church History of the First Three Centuries)

Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism.”
(Hyam Maccoby , Paul: The Mythmaker and the Invention of Chrisianity, p. 16)

“No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus.” (George Bernard Shaw)

“Paul did not desire to know Christ. Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded…. What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?
The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority…. The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.”
(The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer,)

“There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus…. There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul’s soul upon the soul of Jesus…. It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus… was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith.” (George Bernard Shaw, Androcles and the Lion)

“Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”.
(Dr. Roshan Enam, Follow Jesus or Follow Paul, p. 69)

“From the time Jesus left earth to the second half of the Second century, there was a struggle between two factions. One was what one might call Pauline Christianity and the other Judeo Christianity. It was only very slowly that the first supplanted the second, and Pauline Christianity triumphed over Judeo Christianity”.
(Dr. Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, The Quran, and Science, p. 67)

Thus, quite soon after Jesus’s disappearance from earth, there was a definite and widening divergence between the followers of Jesus 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.
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. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus, Prophet of Islam)

Naturally, those who deviated from the teaching of Jesus were prepared to change the Scriptures too, and even introduce false writings in order to support their opinions. (ibid)

The Ebionites were stigmatized by the Church as heretics who failed to understand that Jesus was a divine person and asserted instead that he was a human being who came to inaugurate a new earthly age, as prophesied by the Jewish prophets of the Bible. Moreover, the Ebionites refused to accept the Church doctrine, derived from
Paul, that Jesus abolished or abrogated the Torah, the Jewish law. Instead, the Ebionites observed the Jewish law and regarded themselves as Jews. The Ebionites were not heretics, as the Church asserted, nor ‘re-
Judaizers’, as modern scholars call them, but the authentic successors of the immediate disciples and followers of Jesus, whose views and doctrines they faithfully transmitted, believing correctly that they were derived from Jesus himself. They were the same group that had earlier been called the Nazarenes, who were led by James and Peter, who had known Jesus during his lifetime, and were in a far better position to know his aims than Paul, who met Jesus only in dreams and visions. Thus the opinion held by the Ebionites about Paul is of extraordinary interest and deserves respectful consideration, instead of dismissal as ‘scurrilous’ propaganda — the reaction of Christian scholars from ancient to modern times.
(Hyam Maccoby, The Myth Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity)

“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? )

“More and more people are now aware that the Christianity they know has little to do with the original teaching of Jesus. During the last two centuries the research of the historians has left little room for faith in the Christian “mysteries”, but the proven fact that the Christ of the established Church has almost nothing to do with the Jesus of history does not in itself help Christians towards the Truth. The present dilemma of the Christians is illustrated by what the Church historians of this present century write”. (Muhammad Ataur – Rahim, Jesus, Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 13)

Conclusion:

The “Christians” are commanded to follow the Old Testament, the observance of the Torah (Matthew 5:17-2)

The Holy Quran rebukes them for not following the true Gospel of Jesus and discarding the Torah, the Law of Moses which Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) cherished, and Christians reject!

Say: “O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.” It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that
increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith. (Holy Quran, 5:68)

From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the
day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. (Holy Qur’an 5:14)

Say: “O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way. (Holy Qur’an 5:77)

Seeker of Truth can easily conclude that Christianity and its missionary  promote the Paganic  religion of Paul and not the true teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam).

What is the West?? The Origins and Definition of Western Civilisation

[By Abdullah al Andalusi]

Introduction: Why is it important to understand and define ‘The West’??

The term ‘The West’, ‘The Western world’ and ‘Western culture’ are used quite widely by ‘Western’ politicians, media and academics to refer to the very specific phenomena of ‘Western Civilisation’. Most people who use the term ‘the West’, do so intuitively, and generally agree on who are the main Western countries and states.

However, there are times when some people challenge the label ‘the West’, and seek to dismiss its use – especially when faced with arguments criticising ‘The West’ for its collective history of colonial abuses, ongoing foreign military interventions, and the endless stream of cultural products it exports aggressively across the world.

Generally, most people would agree that England, France, Germany, USA, Canada and Australia are Western countries, while countries such as Nigeria, Turkey and South Korea are ‘Westernised’. Obviously ‘The West’ doesn’t just mean europe, otherwise Australia and USA wouldn’t be included – and Russia would be included.

But what does ‘Western’ mean, where did the term come from, and what definitive criteria can be use to determine what is ‘Western’, ‘Westernised’ and ‘non-Western’?
An understanding of the origins of the West, and what defines it, will decisively help to ascertain and predict its character and behaviour.

The Origins of the West: The Roman Empire

The discussion about the West begins with the Roman Republic (509BC-27BC). The Roman republic lasted until 27BC when its republican political system of elected representatives and unelected aristocrats was overturned by the rise to power of the military general Octavian who became Rome’s first Emperor, transforming Rome into an Empire. The Roman Republic already controlled many provinces around the Mediterranean that it had conquered before it transformed into an Empire. This is because Rome under elected representatives was no less warlike than when ruled under Emperors, in fact probably more so before the imperial period [1].

Between 274–148 BC, the Roman Republic never had a year where it wasn’t at war with other states – including against other republics, like Carthage.

While Western Civilisation certainly arose in Europe, many falsely assume that Western Civilisation is based upon the lands occupied by the Roman Empire, but this is historically inaccurate. The Romans didn’t see themselves as a european empire but more of an mediterranean empire (the word ‘mediterranean’ means in Latin: ‘middle of the Earth’). Rome wasn’t exactly European as there were many places in Europe that were unconquered and uncivilised to them, like the north western european territories outside roman control – which were populated by peoples the romans considered barbarians like Caledonia (Scotland), Hibernia (Ireland), or in the north, like Scatinavia (Scandinavia) and in the east, like Magna Germania (Germany/Poland). Furthermore, the Roman Empire was not a european Empire because it had numerous middle-eastern and north African possessions which were integral parts of it

image

The Roman Empire’s territories do not correspond with the modern ‘West’, nor Europe. The seeds of Western civilisation wouldn’t start in Europe, but in the middle-east. Rome’s acquisition of a middle-eastern province it called Judea, would later see the rise of an obscure middle-eastern religious sect that would later be called Christianity – which would have a seminal role in the creation of Western civilisation.

The Roman Occupied Province of Judea and Judaism

Roman Judea was situated upon the area formerly occupied by the Biblical Ancient Kingdom of Israel (1050–931 BC).

The Kingdom of Israel comprised the 12 tribes of Israel, a nation led out of slavery in Egypt, according to the Tanakh (Jewish scriptures/Old Testament for Christians) and the Quran, who were favoured by God to bear witness of monotheism to the world and righteousness under the law of Moses.

There are a number of archeological and biblical sources for the history of the 12 tribes of Israel, but dates and events are still speculative. However, what the Tanakh teaches, is that Moses took the 12 tribes of Israel out of Egypt and into the wilderness of Sinai. The 12 tribes constitute the 12 clans originating from the 12 sons of Prophet Jacob (Yaqub [a.s.]), who was given the name Israel [2].

While in the wilderness, Moses conveyed the Law of God he received from revelation (called the Law of Moses , or Mosaic Law ) and decreed the building of a mobile tent-shrine to the one God – the Tabernacle. Moses’ teachings are alleged to be incorporated into the ‘5 books of Moses’ (called the
Torah by Jews . The books that would come later would record the stories of Prophets, the history of the tribes of Israel, and the Prophetic kings that came after Moses. These texts would be gathered and added to the 5 books of Moses, and later called the Tanakh by Jews, or the Old Testament by Christians).

The 12 tribes were promised by Moses the land of Canaan (modern day Lebanon and Palestine) except [3] the Philistine city states (modern day Gaza) [4].

The Conquest of Canaan and the era of Judges

After 40 years of waiting in the wilderness as nomads and growing in strength, the death of Moses saw the 12 tribes begin a successful conquest of Canaan led by Joshua, who was given the title ‘Judge’ in the Tanakh. Each tribe was given an area to settle – except the tribe of Levi, who were to be the priest caste for the other tribes, and would dwell in the cities being paid a tithe by the others. The 12 tribes lived under a loose confederation under successive leaders called ‘Judges’ but were more than judges in the legal sense, and were considered as Prophets in the Tanakh. Judges arose amongst the 12 tribes to unite them to fight external enemies, and sometimes they would arise to revive Mosaic law and monotheism in the face of lapses by the 12 tribes.

Due to border wars with the Philistines, the loose confederation of 12 tribes demanded a King over them, and were united into the Kingdom of Israel by Prophet Samuel (a.s.) under the King Saul (1050BC). Saul was later deposed by the Prophet Samuel due to allegedly not following God’s commands, and was replaced as King by David (1010BC), from the Israelite tribe of Judah.

The Jewish Concept of the Kingdom of God

The lands of Israel were described in the Tanakh as ruled by God, who would be its King [5]. During the time of the Judges, the Judges would direct the tribes of Israel by God’s judgements. After the beginning of kingship, the King was considered the deputy of God, and would rule Israel on His behalf according to Mosaic law. Courts would be set up and to judge by Mosaic law [6]- where even the King would be held accountable and deposed upon serious breach.

Mosaic law was a complete way of life for its time, guiding personal spiritual rituals, personal virtues to economic transactions, structure of Jewish society, laws and state. The Jewish understanding of the Kingdom of God, was an earthly Kingdom that established justice and the worship of God on earth.

The Prophet Kings of Israel
King David (Dawud alaihissalaam.) conquered the city of Jebus from the Jebusite tribe of Canaan [7], after which it is eventually renamed Jerusalem (as well as ‘The City of David’, and ‘Zion’) . After the passing of David, his son, Solomon [Sulayman alaihissalaam] becomes king of the Kingdom of Israel (970BC to 931BC), and builds its temple to the One god in Jerusalem. The Kingdom of Israel continued until Solomon’s (Sulayman alaihissalaam) death (931BC), where it split, with 10 tribes forming the northern Kingdom of Israel (centered around their capital of Samaria) and two tribes, the tribes of Benjamin and the dominant tribe of Judah forming the southern Kingdom of Judah (with the tribe of Levi, or Levites, moving to them shortly after), centered around their capital of Jerusalem.

image

The Northern kingdom of Israel was eventually conquered by the Assyrian Empire (720BC), and is portrayed in the Tanakh as being conquered as divine retribution for its sins and turning to idolatry. It’s ten tribes were exiled by the Assyrians and became known as the ‘ten lost tribes of Israel’ .

It was from the remaining Kingdom of Judah, which was dominated by the Judah Tribe, that the word ‘Judaism’ and ‘Jew’ originate from, i.e. the religion of the people of Judah.

Destruction of the Kingdom of Judah and the beginning of the era of Occupation

The Babylonians eventually conquered the Assyrians, and then took the southern kingdom of Judah in 587BC – destroying the first temple of Solomon – and taking the Jewish population as slaves into exile in Babylon.

The Babylonians were then conquered in turn by the Achaemenid Persians under ‘Cyrus the Great’ (539BC), who allowed the Jews to return back to Canaan and rebuild their (second) temple in Jerusalem. The Jews were given the region around Jerusalem as an autonomous region within the Achaemenid Persian empire, called Yehud Medinata. The Persians were then in turn conquered by Greeks led by Alexander III of Macedon, or ‘Alexander the great’ (331BC) which spread Greek culture (called Hellenism by historians) and Greek language throughout the eastern part of the mediterranean and the middle east, which would later have a decisive impact on creating the borders of Western civilisation .

Alexander’s greek empire split after his death (323BC) and was divided by his generals. Alexander’s General Seleucus eventually took control of the area from modern day Turkey and the Levant (Palestine/Syria) to modern-day Pakistan. This would be the later called the Seleucid Empire. It would clash with Rome in greece, and later crumble and fall to Parthian Persians invading from the East.

Under Seleucid rule, there were many Jews who adhered to the laws of Moses and the belief in one God, and strongly preserved the teachings of their ancestors against the ‘modern’ pagan Hellenism that dominated the Middle-East and eastern mediterranean. However, many Jews became Hellenised and adopted Greek culture, and even greek pagan religions.

The end of occupation, and the establishment of the Kingdom of Judea

In 167BC, the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes ordered that non-Hellenised Jews were forbidden from practicing their religion, laws and culture, and were ordered to adopt Hellenistic religion, customs and laws. This caused a revolt amongst Jews, called the Maccabean Revolt, which lasted 7 years and pitted Jews against collaborators amongst the ‘Hellenised Jews’ and and Seleucid authorities. The revolt eventually lead to a victory from the Jewish forces, and the establishment of the Kingdom of Judea (160BC-63BC). Hellenistic Pagan temples were torn down and the temple of Solomon was cleansed of idolatry and re-dedicated to the one God (which Jews still celebrate today as Hanukkah) [8].

The Kingdom of Judea was independent for almost 100 years and expanded its borders during this time. However, Hellenism still was a potent political and cultural force, and Jewish society was split into a number of factions or political parties, with some based upon the preservation of Jewish tradition and the rejection of hellenism, and others who had a mild accommodation to hellenistic culture and philosophy. The three main factions were the Pharisees (Jewish traditionalists), Sadducees (aristocratic and inclined to hellenist philosophy, which, for example, denied the existence of an afterlife) and the Essenes (ascetics) [9].

Beginning of the Roman Occupation of Judea

In 63BC a civil war in the Kingdom of Judea allowed the Roman Republic an excuse to intervene.

Jerusalem was then conquered by the Roman general ‘Pompey the Great’ in 63BC, and the Kingdom of Judea became a client state of Rome with puppet figurehead rulers (known to be oppressive and silence political dissent), like King Herod. In 6BC, the puppet ruler Archelaus was made ruler of Judea by Roman approval, but was even more unpopular than his predecessors. This led to Rome deposing the ruler and turning the Kingdom of Judea into a Roman province under direct Roman rule from 6AD onwards.

Roman occupation and taxation caused the rise of two new factions, the Zealots (followers of Pharisee intent, but actively opposed to Roman occupation and paying taxes to them), and another faction faction or group, known as the Sicarii (Greek, ‘dagger men’), a group of violent individuals, who undertook extreme violent actions against Romans and Jews identified as tax collectors and collaborators.

The Coming of Hadhrat ‘Eesa (alaihissalaam) (Jesus)

The factionalism between the Jewish movements increased, and over the centuries since the time of Solomon (Sulayman alaihissalaam) the understanding of Judaism had become stale, with blind adherence to doctrines and laws of Moses, lacking nuance and subtlety in places. The laws of personal conduct and jurisprudence had over the centuries become overly-complex and prescriptive, becoming cumbersome and leading to contradictions beyond the law’s original intent. On the other extremes, many Jews had succumbed to greek philosophy and adopted corruptions into Jewish theology (like denial of an afterlife or a continuing soul), while others adopted asceticism and complete separation from worldly life.

Into this milieu came Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam), an alleged carpenter by trade, and raised in Nazareth (Galilee, north of Judea). He claimed receipt of divine revelation and that he was the prophesied Messiah (from Hebrew, ‘anointed one’) that would come and lead Israel to follow the commands of God, establish justice and vanquish its enemies. It is believed he (alaihissalaam) preached throughout Judea, correcting the superficial and over-complicated understanding and practice of the law held by the Pharisees, returning the understanding to the original practice of the time of Musa (alaihissalaam) (Moses).

Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) also is alleged to have argued against the corrupt greek-influenced theology of the Sadducees, and lived a life amongst the community and not separate from it, like the Essenes.

However, although it is believed by many historians today that Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) was executed by Romans at the initiation of Jewish colonial authorities, however the New Testament’s collection of books and the Qur’an declares that he was seen alive and well after his alleged crucifixion (the Qur’an argues he wasn’t killed). According to both sources, Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) was later raised up to heaven and believed will return to fulfill his mission in the future.

Since the raising up of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) from the earth, (speculated around 27AD), the disciples of Jesus [‘Eesa alaihissalaam) formed a Council in Jerusalem, capital of the roman province of (occupied) Judea.

These individuals were considered practicing Jews for all intents and purposes and some historians go as far as to call them, at this juncture, a sect of Judaism. This Jewish sect followed the teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) which attested that the promised Jewish Messiah had come, and were devout Jews adhering to the laws of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam). They became known by others Jews as the ‘ Notzrim’ (Hebrew: Nazarenes, the people of Nazareth, or ‘Nazoraioi’ in Greek).

The decline of the Nazarenes and the birth of Roman/Hellenic Christianity

After the disappearance of Jesus (‘Eesa Maseeh alaihissalaam), Saul of Tarsus, arose to prominence in the new Jewish sect of Nazarenes. Known later as “St Paul”, Saul was a rabbinical student, tent maker and Roman citizen . He was a follower of the Jewish Pharisee school of thought, who initially persecuted the Nazarenes, but later claimed he had a vision of Jesus and converted to the new sect on the way to Damascus.

Paul’s charisma combined with his Roman citizenship and knowledge of Greek, Roman culture and Greek philosophy, allowed him to take a leading role in preaching to Gentiles (i.e. non-Jews) and he described himself as ‘a Messenger to the gentiles’ [10]. Paul preached a message to gentiles of faith and spirituality, but played down the importance of the law of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) – which guided Jews in their personal, social and political lives.

Some scholars would later argue that Paul attempted to make the teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) more appealing to Gentiles, by not requiring any strict rules. Furthermore, Paul preached a decidedly passive and submissive doctrine, commanding people to pay their taxes to Rome, that Israelites be apolitical and wait for the return of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam), and for slaves to be obedient to their masters without complaint. Paul’s ‘interpretation’ on the new sect of Judaism would be more preferable to the Romans and Greeks than the Mosaic social and political way of life that had been causing Jewish uprisings against Roman occupation.

Paul’s ‘Kingdom of God’ would no longer be an earthly kingdom, as Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) understood it, but Paul would reinterpret it to be purely a ‘spiritual kingdom’ that exists only in ‘hearts’ and in the future world of the coming of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam).

It is recorded in the works of Paul, a new Greek-based name for followers of the new Jewish sect: Christians (Greek: Christianoi , followers of Christ , the Greek word for Messiah [11]).

Paul’s virtual abrogation of the law of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam), saw him come to blows with the council of Jerusalem over whether the Law of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) should be followed by Gentiles or not. His teachings were notably submissive to the current political authorities, and his ‘understanding’ of the teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) became the most influential, despite Paul never having known Jesus or learned from his companions. Centuries later, 14 of the 27 books of the modern Christian New Testament would be composed entirely of his alleged writings alone. He died in Rome, having supported Peter in setting up a Christian community there.

A number of Jewish revolts against Rome rule failed, leading to the destruction of the second temple in 70AD by the Romans. 60 years later another failed and disastrous Jewish revolt called the Bar Kokhba revolt (132 AD – 135 AD) led to the Romans destroying the province of Judea, killing and exiling many of the jewish inhabitants. The Romans then renamed Judea to an ancient name for the region ‘Palaestina’, and merged the Roman province of Judea with the Roman province of Syria to create a new province called ‘Syria Palaestina‘. At the decree of Emperor Hadrian, Jews were banned from the city of Jerusalem, which was rebuilt and renamed ‘Aelia Capitolina’ and became a purely pagan capital.

After the destruction of Judea in 130AD, the character of Christianity became dominated by non-Jewish (Gentile) communities of Christian believers called ‘churches’ (from Greek ‘Ecclesia’: assembly) who were spread throughout the areas of the Mediterranean.

After 130AD, the centre of gravity of Christianity shifted from Jerusalem to the Church in Rome, which began to rise in prominence due to being in the capital of the Roman Empire. The Christian community in Rome was founded allegedly by Peter (a disciple of Jesus [‘Eesa alaihisalaam]who is reported to have come to Rome, and was killed by Emperor Nero around 67AD) and later supported by Paul.

However, Christianity began to be viewed with distrust throughout the Roman Empire, leading to many persecutions and killings of Christians lasting on-and-off for over two hundred years.

Christians were suspected of not being loyal to Rome and the Emperor, not participating the Roman political system or military, and holding ideas that threatened traditional roman values and beliefs.

During this time, the beliefs of Christian communities were written down, with each community writing its own version of Jesus’s (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) teaching and life – called Gospels (Greek: Evangelion, good news), other writings included history of the companions of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) or the early churches, and other writings featuring visions later Christians claim they had received about the future (called Apocalyses from the Greek word for ‘revelation’).

Centuries later, these Gospels would be gathered up, with some being discarded, and others being chosen depending on whether or not they agreed with Christian beliefs held by the majority (who were Pagan Greeks/Romans).

Eventually these were compiled into a compilation later to be called ‘the New Testament’ (The Jewish Tanakh was then referred to as the Old Testament).

The Roman Empire Adopts Christianity

Eventually, Christianity persisted through the persecutions and continued to spread to the point it was patroned by the Roman Emperor Constantine – some historians say as a means to supplant his rivals, and use it to enforce order in a declining empire. Constantine issued the edict of Milan, in 313AD officially granting tolerance of Christianity.

Eventually, after support from following Christian emperors, under Emperor Theodosius I, in 380AD, Christianity was declared the only legitimate religion of the Roman Empire, and therefore the ‘Catholic ‘ Church (from Greek: katholikos, universal). In the years that followed, many pagans were forced to convert to Christianity or lose their positions, be threatened, or even killed.

The Christian Church at this point wasn’t hierarchical or strictly unified. It was composed of a scattered collection of Christian communities (churches) in different areas of the Roman Empire, each led by its own Bishop (from Greek ‘epískopos’, meaning overseer or guardian) and following various gospels or other writings.

Whenever a matter of doctrine or dispute was to be decided, the Roman emperor would summon the bishops of all the areas within the Roman empire to attend a council or synod, where each matter would be decided by voting. The Council of Nicaea in 325AD was one such example, convened by Constantine to decide the question of the divinity of Jesus by putting it to a vote, resulting in a majority voting for Jesus being declared one with God, and God himself, despite being opposed by a minority (an example of democracy in theology).

The Split of the Roman Empire into East and West

The adoption of Christianity did not prevent the continuingly endless civil wars, succession crises, constant barbarian invasions and gradual economic decline that wrecked the Roman Empire. After the death of Emperor Theodosius I, in 395AD, the Roman Empire split into two.

The Western half being roughly composed of Latin speakers, and the Eastern half of Greek speakers.

image

The Eastern Roman Empire remained, and was later called by historians, the Byzantines, because Emperor Constantine moved the Roman capital to former Greek city of Byzantium, rebuilt it and renamed it Constantinople.

Despite this, the Eastern Roman Empire regarded themselves simply as ‘Romans’ and they viewed their lands as the continuing Roman Empire.

The Western Roman Empire continued to decline, and retreated from its northern territories in europe. The empire lasted (officially) until 4 September 476AD, when Rome was conquered and sacked by a barbarian invasion force led by Odoacer, which deposed the Roman emperor.

The traditions and practices of the West and Eastern churches would later gradually diverge over time, with communication becoming increasingly difficult and theological disagreements would arise due to translation differences, becoming more acute with the decline of the use of Latin and Greek in both areas.

In the wake of the collapse of the Roman Empire, the tribes and nomadic hordes of Scatinavia and Germania, the Franks, Visigoths, Vandals, Lombards and Saxons burst into former Roman lands, rampaged and conquered and established a patchwork of new fiefdoms and kingdoms. The relatively uneducated and unsophisticated barbarian tribes couldn’t repair roman technology or buildings, and left them to slowly crumble. The places of learning fell into disrepair and the technological know-how of the romans was lost, which heralded in the what historians would call the european ‘Dark Ages’ . The Dark Ages were not a product of Christianity as some modern day Secularists falsely misrepresent, but rather the Dark Ages were an obvious and natural result of the collapse of the (Christian) Roman Empire and the usurpation of its lands by barbarian tribes!

The Eastern Roman Empire didn’t fall, and therefore managed to preserve all the learning and technology from the Roman Empire and never suffered under a ‘dark age’. The Dark Ages would only descend upon the remains of the Western Roman Empire setting the scene for what would come next.

The split in the Roman Empire into a Western Latin speaking half, and an Eastern Greek speaking half would set the course for the creation of the modern “West”. The surviving remnant of the fall of Rome, the Church of Rome would operate within the latin speaking half and cause subsequent transformations using a radically altered religion that was taken from the Middle-East into Europe and transformed into a hybrid of ancient semitic beliefs and Greeco-Roman philosophy and mythology.

This hybrid religion would then create a historical peculiarity over the next 1,000 years that would form Western Civilisation and make it distinct from all others.

Now, we look at what happened after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and how the last surviving institution, the Roman Church was vaulted into ascendency by the unwitting activity of a new rising civilisation – Islam.

The clash of the West European Christian Tribes with the Islamic Civilisation, would unleash forces that led to the birth of the West as a distinct civilisation. The rise of Islam would create the West.

The Fall of the Western Roman Empire and the ‘Barbarian’ Colonisation of Europe

The Western Roman Empire was crumbling economically and militarily, and began to withdraw from many areas of the Empire, in many places it ceded areas to barbarian tribes for settlement instead of resisting. However it was a matter of time before the complete collapse of the Western Roman Empire came.

After the sack of Rome to Alaric and his gothic army in 410AD, the city of Rome remained, although only a pale shadow of its former esteem.

The Gothic armies of Odoacer (a former Roman officer) deposed the last Western Roman Emperor in 476AD and Odoacer was declared first (‘Barbarian’) King of Italy. This formally ended the Western Roman Empire.

With the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe was overrun with barbarian tribes, from Germania – the Franks, the Lombards, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Frisians and the Angles and Danes from Scandinavia.

image

The native Gauls and Celts who had previously lived throughout western Europe under Roman power were christian and many Christian communities of the Western Roman Empire survived and adapted to their new pagan overlords (although some of the tribes were nominally Christian).

image

Later on, the Eastern Roman Empire under Emperor Justinian (ruled 527AD-565AD) attempted to reconquer all the former Western Roman areas into a reunited Roman Empire, which met with some success, but eventually shrank back due to overstretched resources.

However, the Eastern Roman Empire managed to retain Rome, leaving a small garrison force to protect it. The city of Rome looked to the Eastern Roman Empire for its protection against the european barbarians. The Bishop of Rome attended the councils and synods of his fellow Bishops in the Eastern Roman Empire (who each head churches in Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople), but this didn’t last long.

The Rise of Islam & the Breakaway of the Church of Rome

Pressured by constant wars against the Persian Sassanid Empire and the invading Bulgars, the rise of Islam and the military defeats of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) armies, shrivelled up the Eastern Roman Empire, losing it North Africa, Egypt, the Levant and the islands of the mediterranean. Constantinople barely resisted a number of sieges by Caliph Muawiyah, relying on ‘greek-fire’ flamethrowers to fend off the Muslim forces.

The pressure of the barbarian Lombards invasions of Italy, and the loss of a significant amount of provinces to the Islamic Caliphate created a weakness and inability in the Eastern Roman Empire to protect the Italian peninsula. This prompted the Bishop of Rome to look towards the new germanic tribal overlords of Europe for protection. If the rise of the Islamic Caliphate hadn’t conquered the lands dominated by the Eastern Roman Empire, history would have taken a completely different turn.

The Roman Catholic Church finds new patrons

With the Roman Church free of the Eastern Roman Empire’s control, it used Rome as a base of operations to send missionaries and resources from the Catholic Church to convert the invading pagan tribes to Christianity and set up new communities and expand existing ones – leading to new Bishops and Churches being established throughout Europe. This task was made easier due to the fact that many of the invading tribes were already (nominal) Christians, and had earlier become Christian due to awe at the power and civilisation of the former Roman Empire.

The Bishops and clergy preserved Western Roman language (Latin) and a lot of Roman administrative methods, laws and codes. They offered their assistance and giving them religious-approved authority to the rule over the new Christian tribal kings and chiefs in return of protection and patronage. Over time, the invaders were latinised and their languages changed under the tutelage of Bishops and clergy who preserved many aspects of late Roman culture. This led to the adoption of many latin words into the languages of these new Christian tribes – leading to the languages that would eventually become French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, English and German. Eventually, conquest and increasing wealth from settlement and sedentary life led to the rise of bigger kingdoms in Western Europe.

In 800 AD,  Pope Leo III crowned the highly successful Frankish King, Charlemagne, as ‘Holy Roman Emperor’, conveying upon the church of Rome, the ability to spiritually approve and make Kings and heirs to the Roman Empire itself (which was strongly protested by the Empress Irene of the Eastern Roman Empire, and her successor Emperor Nikephoros I, who viewed themselves to be the only true continuation of the Roman Empire).

Charlemagne’s Frankish empire, called the Carolingian Empire – spanned modern-day France, Germany and Northern Italy, and had become powerful patrons of Roman Christianity, fighting Muslims in Spain (with limited results), conquering the Lombards in Italy, and forcing the Saxons in Germania to convert to Christianity or face death.

image

The Carolingian Empire lasted until 846AD where it split into three parts between three sons of Frankish Emperor Louis ‘the Pious’ (840AD), Western Francia, Northern Italy and the third Kingdom over the area where is now modern Germany.

image

The Frankish Kingdom ruling over the area where is now modern-day Germany (shown in pink on the picture above), expanded somewhat and later became another revived ‘Holy Roman Empire’ under King Otto I in 962AD (lasting in very different forms up until 1809).

While Bishops and Churches of the Eastern Roman Empire were puppets of the Emperor and lacked independence, however, the new political independence of Rome and its Church from the shrinking Eastern Roman Empire allowed the Bishop of Rome to act independently and decide theological doctrines outside of Eastern Imperial control. This would eventually lead to a schism between the Christian communities under the influence of the Roman Church (the churches of Western europe) and the prominent christian communities under the rule of the Eastern Roman Emperor.

Over the years many Bishops of Rome began increasingly claiming that they possessed preeminent authority in all earthly and spiritual matters – arguing that the foundation of christian communion (i.e. The Christian ‘ Ummah’), was upon St. Peter, who they argued was given the ‘keys to the Kingdom of Heaven’ [12]. The Bishops of Rome argued they were the direct successors of St. Peter, and therefore only they were inheritors to the same ‘powers’ and ‘authority’ allegedly first conveyed to St. Peter – possessing ‘rightful’ leadership of all the Christian communities throughout the world.

In the past, the Bishops of all the most prominent Christian communities were called ‘Popes’ (Greek: Father), however, the Bishop of Rome would now (according to itself) be the only one that could be called
Pope . In essence, the Bishop of Rome, gradually claimed pre-eminence until it declared that the Bishop of Rome alone could unilaterally decide Christian doctrine, rites, creed and canon law without strictly needing councils or synods.

In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent Cardinal Humbert to deliver a decree to the head Bishop (Patriarch) of Constantinople, Michael Cærularius. The decree not only claimed the supreme authority of the Pope of Rome, but also claimed that the Roman emperor Constantine had in centuries past ‘donated’ the Roman Empire to the Church of Rome (this was based upon an inauthentic and possibly deliberately forged document called ‘the donation of Constantine’). The mission ended badly and the decree was rejected and the Cardinal excommunicated (i.e takfir) the Eastern Christian Patriarch. This was met in response by a mutual excommunication from the Patriarch against Pope Leo IX. This began the West-East schism creating what is known today as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Christendom – The first Consciousness of Western Civilisation

Conversion to Christianity from amongst the pagan european tribes had already begun under Roman Imperial rule from 4th century and continued progressively until 14th century.

However, it was the Roman Catholic encounter with Islam that would change Western Roman Christians forever, and inadvertently create the beginning of Western Civilisation as a separate civilisation all of its own.
The Roman Catholic Churches control over the tribes and kingdoms increased over time, but politically their patrons and influence were faced with an enemy it couldn’t easily conquer – the Islamic Civilisation.

Everywhere the Catholic Church looked, whether to the West in Iberia (modern-day spain/portugal), Sicily, North Africa, the Eastern Levant and beyond, all it could see was the lands of Islam.

This created a call of unity by the Catholic Church, to all Catholic Christians, would slowly gather pace around 11th century, leading to a new purpose for war, a Crusade from Latin cruciata , past participle of cruciare “to mark with a cross,”) against the ‘infidel’.

The settled tribes of Western europe had by now become established kingdoms and had warred against eachother. The creation of a new kind of war, a war based upon their Catholic Christian identity, and blessed by their religion, created a new awareness and consciousness in the world that had now become a distinct civilisation –
Christendom.

From [Pope] Gregory VII [d.1058AD] onward, christianitas and related words occurred much more frequently, and it is in that period that the term began to achieve its “true significance.” The heyday of christianitas coincided with the rise of the papal monarchy, and the idea of Christendom finally “triumphed” under the pontificate of [Pope] Innocent III [d.1216AD], perhaps the mightiest of papal monarchs.
This idea lay at the center of Innocent’s political outlook and actions. One finds the full articulation of the notion of christianitas in crusading chronicles, where the word was in common use. This is understandable once we realize that the concept of Christendom was the first to take shape among the various preconditions of the crusading movement—as well as the last to vanish. A precondition of the crusade, the concept of Christendom was realized with the crusade. The launching of the crusade can be seen as marking the symbolic point when Christendom became “a living reality,” when it was transformed into what could be called a society.
“Christendom (and the idea of Christendom) found its most potent expression in the crusade; the crusade exalted Christendom, carried it to its highest point of fervor.” Christendom and the crusade came into existence together: They were “made together, in a reciprocal creation.” (13)

It comes as no surprise then, that the earliest surviving record we have today of the use of the word ‘christianitatis’ to mean ‘Christendom’ as the dominions of (Roman Catholic) Christians, occurs in a chronicle of an unnamed crusading warrior from the first Crusade:

“Turci inimici Dei et sanctae christianitatis” [The (Muslim) Turk is an enemy of God and Holy Christendom] (14)

In effect, the medieval Catholic Church created Christendom by radicalising the Catholic Christian peoples of Europe against Islam.
Up until now, the Catholic Church’s political power was limited to only rubber stamping Catholic kings and rulers and demanding their christian populations obey them.

However, the call to crusade and the ability to regularly launch wars under its instigation – attracting volunteers from both the peasant and noble classes across the Catholic kingdoms – gave the church a degree of ascendency over all the Catholic Kings. The new consciousness and civilisation of Christendom that spanned the Western European kingdoms and transcended their borders, would now be led by the Catholic Church.

The first incarnation of the something approximating the modern-day West, and its precursor, was ‘Christendom’. This concept referred to all lands dominated or ruled over by Christians from the Western Roman Church, Roman Catholicism, and did not generally include the Eastern Orthodox Church or lands of its followers.

As Europe came into the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, the Swedes, and Danes converted to Catholic Christianity as did the rest of Scandinavia and eastern Germany. Viking raiders settled in west Francia on condition of converting to Christianity, andwere called Normans (from latin Normanni, from the old Frankish word Nortmann, which mean ‘North men’). The region is now called Normandy.

Further East, the Slavs and peoples of Novgorod (later Russia) converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

image

The region in the above illustration, marks the schism between the West Roman Church (Roman Catholicism) and the Eastern Roman Church (Eastern Orthodox Christianity).

The Catholic Kingdoms of Denmark, Poland and Sweden (and two Germanic Knight orders) launched crusades in the 13th-14th century to spread Christianity and force convert the Pagans to the East, however Catholic crusades weren’t only reserved for pagans and Muslims. Pope Gregory IX endorsed Northern Crusades in 1242 against the Eastern Orthodox Christian Kingdom of Novgorod (modern day Russia), which ended in defeat for the Catholics. These campaigns are now called the ‘Northern Crusades’.

The lands under control of Roman Catholic Christians by 14th century, or Christendom , set the basis the region that would be later collectively called ‘the West’, and form the lands whose descendants would later be called ‘Westerners’.

A Brief Note on Eastern Roman Empire and the Islamic Civilisation’s Perspective towards Christendom

Since the split of the Roman Empire into two parts, the Eastern Roman Empire had always referred to the other half as fellow Romans. When the Western Roman Empire was overrun by barbarians, the barbarians were obviously not considered Romans, but after the later latinisation of their culture due to the work of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Roman Empire called them ‘Latinikoi’ (Greek: Latins ). It should be borne in mind, that the Eastern Roman Empire considered only themselves as the surviving continuation of the Roman Empire, and called themselves ‘Rhomaioi’ (Greek: Roman). The new ‘Latins’ of the West, were merely viewed as latinised barbarians who ruled over the conquered lands they took from the Roman Empire, and inherited and imitated some of the old culture from a dead part of the Roman Empire mixed with their own – and so could never truly be Roman themselves.

The Islamic Civilisation had conquered the germanic tribe Visigoths and ended their occupation of Iberia, but later encountered border clashes with the Catholics of Asturias in the mountainous area of northern Iberia (Al Andalus). Muslims had also fought against Normans invading Sicily. However, Muslims of the time did not perceive of Christendom as a united force, nor a separate civilisation.

This was going to change after the Crusades, when Muslims observed Christians from all over Western europe were flocking into armies directed at the Islamic Levant. But this didn’t prompt Muslims to lump all Christians together – they still differentiated between Eastern Romans, native Middle Eastern Christians, and the warlike newcomers from Western Europe.

The Christian Eastern Romans were simply called ‘Al Rum’ and their Greek language was called ‘Al Rumi’, and the Christians living in Islamic lands were simply called ‘Christians’ or Nassara (Arabic for Nazarenes).

The closest name invented by Muslims for the people of Christendom (Western European Catholics), was a word coined from their most prominent and most encountered ethnic group, Al Franji (Arabicised word for Franks). This was probably because the Frankish empires of Europe were the most prominent Catholic power for most of the middle ages, and to Muslims, were the most prominent of the people they encountered from that region

******************************

[1] For more information about the aggressive expansionism of the Roman Republic, and a philosophical discussion on why republics are prone to war, read ‘Imperialism In Republican Rome: 327-70 B.C’ (1985, William V. Harris)

[2] The true meaning of the name is disputed amongst historians. Some think it means to ‘rule by God’s authority’, others think it refers to something along the lines of ’success given by God’, or ‘prevailed by God’.

[3] The Philistines are absent on the list of tribes that were commanded to be destroyed by the 12 tribes of Israel (Deuteronomy 7:1, 20:17 )

[4] The modern word Palestine is speculated to be derived from Philistine or the Ancient Egyptian word ‘Peleset’ (1100BC-800BC) as the oldest word for south part of Canaan.

[5] “(God’s) throne, to be king for the Lord thy God” (2 Chron. 9:8; 1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23)

[6] Exodus 18:13-26, Deuteronomy 1:9-16, Deuteronomy 17:8-20

[7] 1 Chronicles 11:4-5

[8] 2 Maccabees 6:1–11 (Tanakh/Old Testament, Bible)

[9] For more information, read the account of Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18:1: http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm

[10] Romans 15:16

[11] This term is derived from the Greek translation of the Hebrew work Messiah Christós, the anointed one

[12] Matthew 16:13-19 (New Testament, Bible)

[13] Crusading Peace Christendom, the Muslim World, and Western Political Order, Tomazˇ Mastnak, 2002

[14] Gesta Francorum VI,xiii.