Tag Archives: Trinity

Refutation of Pagan-Christian Trinity

Say not ‘Trinity:’ desist:  It will be better for you. For God is One God.” – [Holy Qur’an 4:171]

Let’s do something very  simple. I will quote to you  verbatim from  the  Athanasian  Creed concerning  the Trinity  and every  time you see “God”  or “Person” make a  mental  check  mark and  then total them.  It reads:  “The Father is  God, the Son is God, the Holy  Ghost is God…the Father is a Person, the Son is a Person, the Holy  Ghost is a Person.”  How  many  check  marks  did you get??  Anyone who can count at a  first-grade level should  have gotten six. Three for “God” and three for “Person.” The Creed  continues: “and yet they  are  not three Gods  but one God…and yet they  are not three Persons but one Person.” The Creed further states:  “We worship one  God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.” Does anyone speak English  here?? Have  words lost their meanings?? In this chapter  we will  examine this  doctrine of the “triune” god and expose it  as an obvious fabrication perpetrated by  the Hellenistic Pauline gentile Church.

What the Trinity is

As Muslims it is tremendously  important for us to have accurate knowledge  as to  what exactly the Trinitarian belief entails. Christians very often charge us with propagating false information regarding this dogma. You  may  hear an apologist say, “Muslims believe  that we worship  three  gods and that we have left the  monotheistic tradition.” Remind  your Christian acquaintance, “It’s not that we believe you worship three gods, we understand your  claim  to  monotheism,  we  are simply not buying it.”

The Trinity teaches that there is  only one essential being or  nature, but that this nature is manifested into three separate and distinct personalities, namely  the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy  Ghost (Spirit). Although the Father is  greater  than the Son and the Holy Ghost is His office or person, their essential natures are  co-equal, co-eternal, co-substantial, and completely  inseparable. Therefore, where the Father  is  in essence  so are the Son and Holy  Ghost.  You can think of this in terms of a triangle: At the three points are the three persons, labeled “Father, Son, and Holy  Ghost.” These are the three “Who’s.”  Now imagine an arrow starting from the inside of each corner and pointing inward toward the  middle. The  middle can be labeled “God.” This is the one “What.” Therefore, the Father  is not the Son  nor is he the  Holy  Ghost,  but they  are all God.

The triune god cannot  be  divided  in  his spirit. Christians who know something about their beliefs will agree  with you on this, lest you charge them  with tritheism. This leads us to an interesting  question: If Jesus (the Son) is inseparable from  the Father in his nature/spirit/essence,  then  when Jesus died on the cross as Christians  claim,  the Father as well as  the Holy  Ghost must have  also died along with him. The Christian  will rebut, “No, Jesus died as  God in his  person, not is his essence.” Jack T. Chick writes frequently  in his Christian propagandist literature the refrain, “The Creator allowed Himself  to be  murdered by  men.” If Jesus does not die as  both  God and man, then there is no atonement for sin.

Geisler  and Saleeb state:  “Only  if one and the same person, who is God and man, dies  on the cross for our sin can  we be  saved.  For unless Jesus is  both God and man he cannot reconcile God and  man” (page 268). Despite having a divine nature as  God, Jesus  also has a human nature as  man. Geisler  explains this dualism: “Did Christ die? In his  human nature, he did die. But in his divine nature he did not die. The person who died was the Godman, but his Godness did not die.” Confused yet??  It is little wonder why  nearly  all Christian apologists who have tried to explain the Trinity  find themselves reduced to drawing triangles and scribbling grade-school level equations. So to recap: Christ died as God in his person, he died  as  man in his nature, but  not as God in  his nature. In  other words, he  was two-thirds dead, but  the  one-third  that really  counted, the  divine nature, survived and resurrected him  on the third  day. Therefore, Jesus has the unique  honor  of being  of  two natures, God and man in one person.

The person of Jesus however, is not divine but human, flesh and blood  in  all respects.  Viewed logically, it is the nature of God, His Spirit, within that person that makes him  (Jesus) divine. It is the infinite within  the finite that  makes the latter God-incarnate. Let’s not forget that “God is a Spirit: and they  that worship  him must worship him  in spirit and in truth”  (John 4:24),  not in form, shape, size, flesh, or blood. Christians, however, do not believe  that God died in his nature on the cross, only  the person of God that was Jesus. Certainly God was not killed because He resurrected Jesus (the man) while he lay dead in  his tomb  and according to Christianity,  Jesus resurrected himself.  Thus to say  that Jesus died  as the “Godman” but his “Godness” did not die is to abandon logical consistency  as to the  manner of his death. What made Jesus human??…his nature as  man. What  made him  God??…his nature as deity. Therefore, in order for him to reconcile  God and  man he  must die in both natures. If one of them  survives then this cannot be accomplished.  Dying as God in person would be impossible since it was only  his divine  nature that  made him  God, and it survived according to Christianity. Would it then be  possible for  the person of Jesus to  die but have his  nature as  man survive?? Certainly  not.  He must die  equally  for redemption. Therefore, the Christians deceptively claim that perhaps  what Jesus  meant when he cried on the cross: “My  God,  my God, why  hast thou forsaken  me” (Mark 15:34)? Basically  saying, “Why  have you abandoned me  to die as a  man?” So unless Jesus died in his divine nature (Godness) there is  no atonement of sin. If a Christian should admit  that Jesus  did in fact die in his divine nature as well as his human nature, then respond  by saying that the Father  and  Holy  Spirit  must have died as well because  all three persons of the Trinity are inseparable in  their nature as God according to  the Trinitarian Creeds. Ask him,  “Who ruled and maintained the heavens and the earth when ‘God’ lay  dead in  His tomb  for three days??”

A basic example: If the nature of a dog incarnated into a cat,  who would  you say  the animal really  (essentially) is? Answer: A  dog…even though he is in the  person  of a cat.  Therefore, our nature dictates who we really  are. If the person of the cat was killed  by a passing truck but somehow his dog nature survived, can you say  that the cat died as dog? No, he only  died as a feline. How could the cat die as dog without  his canine nature dying that  made  him  dog in the first place?? He can’t!

A Christian  might explain  to  you that truth is not always  simple. In fact, it can be extremely complex. You do not have  to disagree  with him here. Explain to  him that the Essence of God’s absolute Unity  is something that Muslims believe  is  extremely complex and mysterious, however the  concept  of God in Islam  is  not a difficult thing to grasp. It  can be summed up in literally four verses:  “Say: He is  Allah, the One  and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;  He begetteth not,  nor is  He begotten; And there is none like unto Him”  (Qur’an 112:1-4). The Christian  concept of God as 1+1+1  = 3 cannot be grasped, even by  the likes  of Einstein.  Can God be the creator of such a concept??  No, because “God is not the author of confusion” (I Corinthians 14:33).  But what about 1x1x1? Doesn’t that equal one?? Yes, but so does one to the fourth, fifth, or fiftieth power, so why stop at three persons of  God when you can have a million! 1/1/1 = 1 also. Can God be divided??

What the Trinity is not

Christians charge the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as one who denounced an incorrect concept of the Christian Trinity  because Allah has  said: “And behold! Allah  will say: ‘O Jesus the son  of Mary! Didst thou say  unto  men, worship me  and my  mother as gods  in derogation  of Allah?’ He will say: ‘Glory  to Thee! never could I  say what I had  no  right  (to say). Had I said such a thing,  thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou  knowest what is in my  heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For  Thou knowest in full all that is hidden’”  (Qur’an 5:116). Christian authors claim  that the Prophet believed the Trinity  to consist of somewhat of  a “holy  family,” Father, Son, and Mother. Looking at the verse  a little closer, however, reveals that this assertion is completely incorrect and unfounded.  The words “in derogation  of Allah” translated from  the  Arabic “min du-nillah,” does not correspond to a sense that complements, but rather antagonizes. In essence, God is  asking  Jesus if he ever told his followers that he  or his  mother were gods  other than  Allah. Certainly  no Christian will ever concede that there are three gods,  but  only  one God  in three persons. This verse has nothing to  do with the Trinity; it is dealing with the deification of Jesus and Mary. 

Was Mary  ever deified though? There were actually  sects of Christianity at the  time  of Prophet Muhammad called the Miriamites and  Choloridians who worshipped Mary  as a  mother-goddess  much  like the cult of Isis did in Greco-Roman times.  Also, mention  the  word “Catholic” and  you will  see your  born-again accuser blush. The Catholic will answer that he only  uses Mary as an intermediary,  not as an object of worship. Explain to him  the Muslim concept of  shirk, or false deification. According to Islam,  worship is a direct contact between the worshipper and God. Invoking  God through a creature, no matter how  saintly  he or  she  might have been, would make us no better than the Israelites  and their golden calf or the Quraysh with their stone statues. Paul tells us: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory  of  the incorruptible God into an  image made like to corruptible man,  and to birds, and fourfooted beasts,  and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them  up to uncleanness through the lusts of their  own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into  a lie,  and  worshipped and  served  the creature  more  than the Creator, who is  blessed for ever. Amen” (Romans 1:22-25). Although  Paul is actually offering a cause of the rampant homosexuality  in Roman culture, he  unwittingly lets the cat out  of the  bag. Worshipping  man and serving him, which is exactly what Christians intend with Jesus, is  foolish  behavior. If you say, “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and  blessed is the fruit of thy womb  Jesus. Hail Mary,  mother of God…,”  you are a fool! – Not my word, but Paul’s.

Keep these  words of Paul in  mind: “changed the glory  of the incorruptible  God into an  image made like to corruptible man.”  Now  listen to what he says  about Jesus in Colossians 1:15: “He (Christ,  a man) is the image of the invisible God.” Can you say hypocrisy?? Jesus is the “Word of God” Many  Muslim authors have drawn erroneous analogies between the Qur’an and the Christian Jesus. They have  said that since both are uncreated, imperishable,  and an expression of the divine, they  can be thought of  as identical.  Make sure that when you  say Jesus is the “Word of God,”  you explain him  not as Kalaamullah,  the Word (Literal Speech) of God which is the Qur’an, but rather  Kallimatullah,  a  word  from  God. The creation of Jesus was  purely  an act of divine  Will that resulted  from God’s command for  a thing to come into existence. “When He  hath decreed a plan, He  but saith to it, ‘Be,’ and it is” (Qur’an 3:47). 

A Christian  may  say, “You believe that the Qur’an is uncreated  and eternal, well,  we feel the same about Jesus. You say  that there are two eternal and uncreated things, the Qur’an and God,  and we  say  there are three uncreated and eternal persons, the Father,  Son, and Holy  Ghost. Yet you  call  me an idolater and accuse me of worshipping  three gods. Do  you  worship two  gods then?” Obviously, we do not worship the Qur’an and  we never will. But why  not??  Is it not the  speech of God?? Sure it is.  Speech, however, is not  a “separate  and distinct personality”  of God but rather an attribute or reflection of Him  that  cannot  be separated. God’s attribute of  Mercy  (Rahma)  is certainly  never  detached from  Him  and is also uncreated. His  eternal Word  is precisely  identical. The Christian believes that God is in three persons and that Jesus,  the revelation  of God,  is a person or entity  in  his own right. The Qur’an, however, is a revelation of God’s  only  person. There is no plurality in  God’s holy  person whatsoever. Besides, is Jesus really  uncreated??  Paul calls him “the firstborn of all  creation” in Colossians 1:15.   

There are a  total of ninety-nine attributes that Allah,  most Exalted, has revealed to us in the Qur’an. The Qur’an itself embodies  many  of these attributes  and is frequently  referred to as “Light,”  “Truth,”  and “Mercy.” These ninety-nine attributes are reflections of the  one  essence of God that help us to understand His Will and to develop and maintain a relationship with Him  by  familiarizing ourselves with him  personally. For example, you  may  think that you are  merciful or loving, yet Allah is infinitely  more  merciful  and loving as He is called  al-Rahman  and  al-Wadud, the  most Merciful and most Loving, respectively.

Is the Trinity Biblical??

Fact: The word “Trinity” appears  absolutely nowhere in the Bible in any  way,  shape, or form. What do I  mean by  “way, shape, or form??”  Remember,  the word Trinity is a description of a concept, that of  the triune god. If  the Bible should say  that  there are  three and that these  three are one, then this would suffice as evidence that the Trinity  is  Biblical. The exact word “Trinity” does not need to be spelled out. If a Christian who thinks himself clever should  say, “The  word ‘Tawhid’  is nowhere in the Qur’an,” correct  him joyfully. The  term  “Tawhid,” meaning “oneness,”  is Semitic (Arabic), and like  all Semitic  words it is derived from  a tri-literal root word. In this case it is  wahid  (whd). The word  wahid  denoting  an absolute unity  is used  many times  in the  Qur’an as one of  the  Holy attributes of the Almighty. Here’s an example: 

O People of the Book! Commit no  excesses in  your religion: Nor  say  of Allah aught but  the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary  was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit  proceeding from Him:  so  believe in Allah and His  messengers. Say  not ‘Trinity’ :  desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is  one  God: Glory  be to  Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son.  To Him  belong all things in the heavens  and on earth. And enough  is Allah as a Disposer of affairs” (Qur’an 4:171).

Not only is the concept of Tawhid mentioned and glorified in this verse, the belief in Trinity is explicitly rejected as well.

What about 1 John 5:7? It  reads: “For there are three that bear record in  heaven, the  Father, the  Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” This appears only  in the KJV  & NKJV  of the Bible and has been unceremoniously  expunged from all other  modern translations. Here’s how it looks in the Revised English Bible: “7-8) In fact there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water,  and the blood, and these three are  in agreement.” Notice the verse number  “7-8?”  This  is actually  verse 8 in the  KJV! The commentary  reads (emphasis mine):

7-8: An ancient trinitarian formula (which identifies “Father, Word, and Spirit” as “heavenly witnesses”) was  a gloss  inserted into this passage in some Latin versions. Harris  states  that there have  been numerous New Testament  modifications done over the years. On  page 20  he lists a  few, the last one is of special interest to us (emphasis mine)

No two ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are precisely alike.  Although most differences  in the texts  were probably caused by unintentional errors in copying, some textual variations seem to result from deliberate changes, many of which may  have been  motivated by theological considerations. A few of the oldest manuscripts, including the Codex Sinaiticus,  do  not contain the  phrase “son of God”  in Mark  1:1, leading some scholars to think that the phrase was inserted at the beginning of the Gospel to refute a belief that  Jesus became God’s adopted son  at  his baptism…Similar concerns about  an orthodox understanding of Jesus’ origins apparently influenced  manuscript changes in  Luke’s story of the youthful Jesus’ being left behind  in the Temple. Mary’s reprimand to the child, “your father and I have been  anxiously searching for  you,” was,  in some manuscripts,  changed to “we  have been searching for you” (Luke 2:48; emphasis Harris’), ostensibly to avoid any  implication that Joseph was Jesus’  father. A theological  belief in  Jesus’ omniscience  may have prompted deletion of references  to “the Son” from some copies of Matthew’s statement that “about that day and  hour [of the End] no one knows,…not even the Son; no one but the  Father alone” (24:36)  …Perhaps the most striking New Testament interpolation appears in very late  manuscripts of 1 John  5:7-8, where a scribe inserted the Bible’s only explicit reference  to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity,  asserting that God exists in three persons and that “these three are one.”  This trinitarian statement  occurs in  no manuscript prior to the fourteenth century.

An interpolation?? How can such a verse find it’s way  into the  Word of the  Almighty??  Does He not care to preserve His  Word??  Let Allah, the Knower of all things open and secret describe such scriptural guile: “There is among them  a section who distort the  Book with their tongues: As they read  you  would think  it is a part  of the Book,  but it is  no part of the Book; and they  say,  ‘That is from God,’ but it is not from God: It is they  who tell a lie against God, and (well)  they know it” (Qur’an 3:78) .

Jesus as sacrifice

As we have  observed, Jesus can only  reconcile humanity  if  his nature as God died  exactly  as his nature as  man died.  Christians will also try  to convince  you that Jesus sacrificed his life for our transgressions, but  did he really?? What does it mean  to sacrifice  your life??  This reminds  me  of a story  I  heard about  one of the  Nazi death camps  that housed  many  of the European Jews during the 1st  World War. A piece of  bread or fish or something had been stolen  or misplaced  from  one of the storehouses that the Germans used to  feed the Jewish laborers. All of the men in that section of the camp  were ordered to stand in a straight line before  a firing squad. The Nazi officer told the  men that unless someone confessed of the crime, all  of them  would be shot dead. No one said a word.  The  officer began counting backwards from  five and before he reached one, an  old man stepped  in front of the others to single himself  out. The officer walked casually  over to him  and without a second of hesitation, shot the  man in the face. The others were ordered  to carry  on  with their work. Was he guilty or innocent? We will never know.  The point is  he sacrificed his life for the sake of others. This  means that he lost his life and it was never returned. 

Another, less dramatic example: A rich man sees an old beggar on the street  and feels  compassion for  him to the point that he decides to give the  beggar all of  the money  in his  wallet. It was a total of $500.00. He gave the beggar the  money  with  the understanding  that it  was not a loan, the beggar did not have to pay him back. 

Let’s relate  the above two examples to the Christian Jesus. In the first case, the old  man  gave up his life and did not expect to survive or to have it returned to him.  This is  what it  means to sacrifice,  or to “give up” something. Jesus on the other hand,  was given his life back by  himself(?), after three days  in the tomb. What did he really  sacrifice then,?  Three days??  If the old  man in our example suddenly stands up  from  where he was shot and discovers that the bullet only grazed his head and knocked  him unconscious for three days, did  he really  give up  his life for  the other  prisoners?? He might have had that intention  but  that was not the reality. If  the Christian Jesus was truly  a “sacrificial  lamb  sent to  the slaughter” then he should have stayed dead. 

In the case of the rich  man and the beggar, the rich man freely  gave out  of the mercy  in  his heart. Obviously, the rich  man has thousands  of dollars in the bank, but that particular $500.00 he will  never see again. John 3:16  states: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son…,” yet the only  begotten  son was returned  to God three days  later  and in an exalted and glorified  form! Paul tells  us: “And  being found  in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath  highly exalted him, and given him  a name  which is above every  name” (Philippians 2:8-9). Luke  also says: “The  God of our  fathers raised up Jesus, whom  ye  slew and hanged on  a tree. Him  hath God  exalted  with his right hand [to be]  a Prince  and a Saviour, for to  give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:30-31). This would  be  equivalent to  the beggar giving  the rich man back his $500.00  three days later, with interest!.

Mark 12:29 – The Lord is One

The Trinity  is  central to Christian belief yet it is never clearly  found or defined within the pages of  the Bible. Why would God decide to  veil this sacred knowledge of  Himself for thousands of  years from the ancient Hebrew prophets and  still  not  make it  crystal clear in His  New Testament that such a concept exists?? When it comes to theology, the Christian scriptures must be unequivocal. Certainly  the Qur’an  and Hebrew Bible stand in stark contrast to the twenty-seven books of the New Testament in this  respect. By  saying, “It is written…,” Jesus uses textual support from scripture in Matthew 4:4, 7 to chase away  Satan  while he (Jesus) was fasting in the desert for forty days. So what  is written about  the concept  of God?? Indeed God revealed to Moses [Musa alayhissalaam] the holy  Shema  in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God  [is]  one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The verse transliterated from  Hebrew reads:  Shema yisra’ale adonai eloheynu,  adonai echad

We are told in the Gospel of Mark  of an exchange between a scribe and Jesus [‘Eesa alayhissalaam]: “And one of the scribes came,  and having  heard them  reasoning together, and perceiving that he had  answered them  well, asked him,  which is  the first  commandment  of all?  And Jesus answered him,  The first  of all the commandments  [is], Hear,  O Israel; The Lord our God is  one Lord” (Mark 12:28-29). Now if Jesus  were  sent here  to preach that  he, the Father, and the Holy  Ghost are  of one co-equal nature, then  this would have  been the perfect time  for him to expound, even implicitly, upon this newly revealed doctrine. Yet Jesus [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] does nothing of  the sort.  He actually  quotes Deuteronomy  6:4 verbatim  to drive  the point home  that the theology  he is preaching is exactly the same  as  the theology  that Moses [Musa alayhissalaam] preached. Any reasonable  Christian will agree that  Moses [Musa alayhissalaam] did not worship God  in three persons.

Obviously  Jesus did not  utter these words in Greek as  the New Testament records them. He  actually said, “Shema yisra’ale adonai eloheynu,  adonai echad.” The word used  by  both Moses  and Jesus  for “one” is the Hebrew  “echad”  which is  exactly  the same  word Allah reveals in the Qur’an in  Chapter 112:1:  “Say: He is God, the One and Only  (ahad)!”  What exactly  does  “ahad (echad)”  mean?  It  means that there is nothing comparable  unto God whatsoever. Whatever our petty little  minds can possibly  conjure up as being the Almighty  can never be  Him who is beyond our scope  of human comprehension.  The Prophet  Isaiah said  it perfectly: “To whom  then will  ye  liken  God? or  what likeness will  ye  compare unto him”  (Isaiah 40:18)?  The Christian, however, is in  an extremely pitiful state of affairs  when he affirms  that God is  echad  but  still maintains that Jesus is  Him  in the flesh. Such an utterance stands in  direct  contradiction to Jesus himself. Explain to him  that we can certainly imagine what a physical Jesus looked like in person. After he has the image locked in his mind exclaim,  “that  is not God!”

A Christian  may  bring  up the fact that  God uses the word  echad  in Genesis 2:24 to describe the “coming together” of  Adam  and Eve in the garden. “Therefore,” he will  shout, “there is  allowance for dualism  and even pluralism  in  the Hebrew  word.” Remind him  that he must look  at the  context  to determine the proper meaning. In reference to Adam  and Eve, they’re coming together as one (echad) flesh is used as  a  symbol  of their union. It should  also be noted that the Hebrew word for one numerically  is also  echad. When used in reference to  God, however, the word  takes on a meaning that denotes uniqueness and incomparability,  as this is exactly  what  the Arabic translates to. This is also what the Jews  at the time of  Jesus would have understood the meaning to be. If Jesus  wanted to teach plurality  within the godhead he would have said, “Hear, O Israel;  The Lord our God  is three in  one.” By  him  not doing  so lends credence to the fact that  Jesus allowed the Jews  to understand him  in exactly  the same  way in  which they understood Moses.  If  Jesus was truly  sent to reveal  God in three persons, for  him to  quote the sacred Shema within the  presence of the scribes and  Pharisees is not only inappropriate, but  also viciously deceptive.

The scribe responds to Jesus’ answer: “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he  (and beside Him  there is  no other, Revised English Bible)” (Mark  12:32). There is nothing  else equal to the One and Only God!  This comment is  added by  the scribe to stress  the significance of echad.

Man or God???

Due to the dual nature of Jesus in Christianity, Christians justify  Gospel  verses  where  Jesus expresses  a very  human  element by  saying, “he is speaking and acting as a  man.” The  Muslim  will have to agree. Yet when we try to reason with them  concerning verses in which they  allege that Jesus is claiming divinity, they reply,  “he is  speaking as  God!” This identity  crisis provides the  Christians with a full  proof way  of dodging questions concerning Jesus’  humanity. The Christians have no qualms  about labeling their “God” a schizophrenic. For instance, Strobel tells us: “When Jesus does something that’s  a reflection of him  being God, that’s  ascribed to Christ’s  deity. When there’s something reflecting his limitations or  finiteness or  his humanness  – for example,  his tears; does God cry?  – that’s  ascribed to his humanity.” Here are some  verses that demonstrate both natures of Jesus.

Jesus as man

a)  Jesus cried  like a man.  (This is the shortest verse in all of the Christian Bible).

Jesus wept.” – John 11:35.

b)  Jesus hungered like a  man. “Now in the  morning as he returned  into the city, he hungered.” – Matthew 21:18. c) 

c)   Jesus did not know the seasons, like a  man. “And seeing  a fig tree afar off  having leaves, he came, if haply  he might find any  thing thereon: and when  he came to it, he  found  nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not  [yet].” – Mark 11:13. Also see Matthew 21:19  & Luke 13:6. d) 

d)  Jesus did not know the  Day  of Judgment, like a man . “But of that  day  and [that]  hour  knoweth  no man, no,  not the angels which are in  heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” – Mark 13:32. Also see Matthew 24:36.

e)  Jesus can do nothing by  himself  and seeks his Father’s Will, like a man. “I can of  mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my  judgment is just; because I seek  not mine own will, but  the  will of the Father which hath sent me.” – John 5:30.

For I came  down from  heaven, not  to  do  mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” – John 6:38.

f) Jesus is  subordinate  to his Father, like a  man. “Ye have heard how I said unto  you,  I go away,  and come  [again]  unto  you. If  ye  loved me, ye  would rejoice, because I said, I go unto  the  Father: for my  Father is greater than I.” – John 14:28.

g)  Jesus prayed to his Father like a  man. “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.  Also see Mark  14:35 & Luke 22:41.

h)  Jesus was born like a man. “Then Joseph being raised  from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him  his  wife: And knew her not till she  had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.” – Matthew 1:24-25. 

Jesus as God (as Christians allege(

a)  Jesus  can amend the Sabbath as God. “For the Son  of  man is Lord even of the sabbath day.” – Matthew 12:8. Also see Mark 2:28 & Luke 6:5.

b)  Jesus can forgive sins as God. “And when  he saw their  faith, he said  unto him,  Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.” – Luke 5:20. “And he said unto  her, Thy  sins are forgiven.” – Luke 7:48.

c)  Jesus knew people’s thoughts as God. “And Jesus knowing their thoughts  said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?” – Matthew 9:4. “But he, knowing their thoughts,  said  unto  them, Every kingdom  divided against itself is brought to  desolation; and a house [divided]  against a house falleth.” – Luke 11:17.

d)  Jesus  claimed to be “Yahweh.” “Jesus  said  unto them,  Verily, verily, I say  unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” – John 8:58.

e)  Jesus claimed equality  with God . “I and [my] Father are one.” – John 10:30

f)  Jesus is the  only  way . “Jesus  saith unto him, I  am  the  way, the truth, and the life: no man  cometh unto the Father, but by  me.” –  John 14:6.

g)  Jesus  is  worshipped as God “And when  they saw him, they  worshipped him:  but some doubted.” – Matthew 28:17.

h)  Jesus is all-powerful as God. “And Jesus  came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me  in heaven  and in earth.”  – Matthew 28:18.

So what is the Christian answer??  McDowell makes it “easy”  for  us: “Jesus was the  God-man. He  was just as much  man as if he had never been  God and just as much God as if he had never been man.” Are you scratching your head  yet? Okay, try this: Jesus  was either a Liar,  a Lunatic, or Lord! This Christian gimmick known as the “trilemma” is designed  to trick Muslims into submitting that there are only three possible conclusions about the historical Jesus.  He either 1)  lied about who he was and deserved  to die a criminal’s death or 2) was insane or possessed by  a demon or 3) was  the Lord God. Don’t fall victim to  their  sorcery,  the answer is none of the above!

Strobel tells us: “The New Testament specifically  confirms that Jesus ultimately  possessed every  qualification of deity, including omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, eternality, and immutability.” (page 262).

If Biblical passages point  to Jesus’  deity  as Christians  claim,  then what in the world are we to make of this  man Melchisedek who was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of  days,  nor end of life; but made  like unto the Son of God;  abideth a priest continually” (Hebrew 7:3)?? Why  is he not worshipped by  Christians as God??

Christian Trinity Proof

The Christian concept of Christ as  Son of God is  grossly  anthropomorphic and Pagan. Christian apologists,  in an attempt to convert unsuspecting Muslims  who take issue with such  a concept, are  asking us to think of Jesus as  the  ibn  of Allah, not  the  walad  of Allah,  like  “ibnus-sabeel”, Ask such people if God “coming upon and overshadowing” Mary  is meant  to be figurative. Remind them  that the Nicene Creed describing Jesus as being “begotten not made” is  meant  to be literal, not figurative. 

Geilser  and Saleeb say, “Some have pointed to the fact that  Muhammad  was  simultaneously  a prophet, a husband, and  a teacher.  Why  then should a Muslim reject the idea of a plurality  of functions (persons) of God.” Surely this comparison is false  and inapplicable. The Prophet  was still only  one  person  (human) and one essence  (man). The attributes or  roles  of Prophet  Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were as  prophet, husband, and teacher, but these were not  his “separate and distinct personalities.” Also, Muslims do  not  reject the plurality  of  the functions  of God. The Qur’an  has called Him  the One who creates, destroys, gives sustenance, bestows honor, etc. Functions and persons, however, are not synonymous terms  as  Geisler and Saleeb would like you to believe. The God of  the Qur’an is one Being who has many functions. 

Christians  maintain that the Father, Son, and Holy  Ghost are equal in their nature but are identified by their specific  roles. For  example, the Father planned salvation, the  Son accomplished it by the cross, and the Holy  Ghost applies it to the lives of the believers. If  all three are essentially  equal, would it be okay  to  say  “In the name of the Holy  Ghost, the Son,  and the Father?” Such a formula will cause the Christian to cringe, but why? Why  should it matter?  Although Christians will never admit it, they  believe in a hierarchy  of  gods.  Ask them, “When  you think  of the Father  in heaven, what image comes into  your mind?” Again, they  will  never admit it, but the image is  very  clear. Basically, they imagine a person very  much like jolly old Saint Nick, sitting on a throne with the heavens as His canopy  and the earth as  His footstool. When  you say  “Son” the image of  a young man in his  mid-thirties with white  skin and a straight nose are  conjured. When you say  Holy Spirit, they  imagine a white dove much  like the one  that descended onto Jesus during his baptism. It is  in the nature of primal  man to  make images of that which he reveres or  worships. Islam  has come to rescue  the Christians from  such a  pitiful quagmire of religious deviation and  bring  them  into the light  of true guidance under the  banner of  God’s final  and solidifying Messenger. 

Elohim…means Trinity?

An error Christians  make very  frequently is their interpretation of the Hebrew word  Elohim. They  claim that since this word is plural, literally  meaning “Gods” or “gods,” the plurality  of  the godhead is evidenced  in the Hebrew  scriptures. First of all, remind them  that according to  the orthodox  definition of  the Trinity,  God is only  one. For a Christian to say  that Elohim  should  be taken as “gods” in the literal sense  ambushes their futile claim  of being monotheistic and in the tradition  and spirit of Abraham.  Certainly  Christians don’t believe in three gods in  three persons, but  in only  one God in  three persons. 

Why  is this  word plural? Elohim  is  plural because in the Semitic languages, there is a phenomenon known as the “royal plural.” The book  of Genesis tells us: “And God said, Let  us  make  man in  our  image” (Genesis 1:26), a verse that Christians misuse to  mean that God, being in the form of a  man (Jesus), decided to create Adam  by  modeling  him  after Himself. Christians often charge the Muslims with interpreting the  New Testament in  crooked ways  in order to  corroborate with Islamic belief.  As it turns out, however, the accuser  has become  the accused. The Christians have made grievous errors in interpreting the Hebrew Bible by  reading  into the scripture of the Jews concepts completely  alien to Judaism  such as original sin, divine Sonship,  the plurality  of  God, the divinity  of the  Messiah, etc.  Even the Qur’an, a scripture in which a very  strict  monotheism is stressed, frequently  reveals verses  like: “We  created the heavens and the earth…”; “Why  do  ye  reject  Our Signs…”; “If you are ever  in doubt as to what  We  reveal unto  Our  servant…,” etc. The mutual recriminations  of the People of the Book are recorded in Allah’s Word: “The Jews say: ‘The Christians have naught  to stand upon;’ and the Christians say: ‘The Jews have naught to stand upon.’ Yet they (profess to) study  the (same) Book. Like unto their word  is what those say  who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment” (Qur’an 2:113).

Matthew 28:19 – The Great Commission

We are told in  Matthew 28:19: “Go ye  therefore, and teach all  nations, baptizing them  in  the name  of the Father, and of the Son, and  of the Holy  Ghost.” Christians often cite this as an example of Jesus supporting the Trinity since he uses the Trinitarian formula  “Father, Son,  and Holy  Ghost.” Simply mentioning these three entities, however, in no way constitutes evidence for  the  doctrine  of  the Trinity within this verse. Let’s not  forget that central to the Trinitarian belief is the notion that the  Father, Son,  and Holy  Ghost are  all equal  and of the same  essence.  If a father tells his son while the latter ships off to  war, “Defend freedom  in the name  of your  country,  your father, and  your God,”  does this  mean  that they  are all co-equal, co-eternal, and  co-substantial?? Certainly  not! Ask your Christian friend,  “How is it that Jesus has gone from  saying ‘God is  echad’ (Mark  12:29) and ‘enter  ye not into any  gentile lands’(Matthew 10:5) to ‘Go into  all nations and baptize’ in the name of a triune god?” 

Jesus can forgive sins??

Can Jesus  really  forgive sins??  He certainly  can, but this does not have  to be a point of contention between you and the Christian. Let’s not forget that Jesus said: “I do nothing of myself; but as my  Father hath taught me, I  speak these things”  (John 8:28).  Jesus can only  forgive sins because that is what God  allowed him  to do, very  much like how God allowed him  to raise the dead. This does not  indicate deity  however. The prophets are  mediators between God  and man. They speak with the authority of  God,  but are  not  God  by  any means. 

The Prophet of Islam (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was  once approached by  a man who had committed  a grievous sin but rather than censuring the  man  and asking him  to  confess  what  he had done, the Prophet asked him  an  unusual question. He said, “Is your mother still living?” The  man sorrowfully  replied that she had died  many  years prior. “Do you have an aunt,  your mother’s sister who still lives?” he asked again. The  man  answered, “Yes,  I do.”

The Prophet concluded, “Go care for  your aunt, make her life easy, and your sin is forgiven.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) spoke with the authority of God yet possessed no authority to forgive sins by himself. Also, Jesus  did not just arbitrarily  forgive anyone’s  sins without a reason of some sort. In  Luke 7:48, he forgave a  woman’s sins  because  of the great love she had  for him by  anointing his feet. In Luke 5:20, he forgave a  paralyzed  man  because  he  “showed great faith.” He was simply  communicating to  them  what God had informed him  of. Give praise to God,  not to the  man. Matthew said it  best: “But that ye  may  know that the Son of  man hath  power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go  unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house. But  when the  multitudes saw [it], they  marvelled,  and glorified God, which had  given such power unto men” (Matthew 9:6-8).

John even goes  so far as to say  that the disciples of Jesus  can  forgive the sins of  men.  Are they  then God as  well? “And  when he had said this, he breathed  on them, and saith unto them,  Receive ye  the Holy  Ghost: Whose soever sins  ye  forgive, they  are forgiven  unto them;  [and] whose  soever sins ye  retain, they  are retained” (John 20:22-23). 

Jesus knew the thoughts of people

Matthew writes: “And Jesus  knowing their thoughts  said, Wherefore think  ye  evil  in  your  hearts” (Matthew 9:4)? Again, this does not  make  Jesus  God, only  sent from God. The Qur’an relates a similar type of incident with respect to the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam): “When the Prophet  disclosed a  matter in confidence to one of his consorts,  and she then  divulged it  (to another), and Allah made it  known to him, he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. Then  when he told her thereof,  she said, ‘Who told thee this?’  He said, ‘He told me Who knows and is  well-acquainted (with all things)’” (Qur’an 66:3). There are also numerous other examples from the sound  ahadith  of the Prophet in which  God informs  him of the hidden  motives of certain people. On one  such occasion, he was able to  avert an assassination attempt while visiting the house of a Jewish family  of  Bani Nadir.

Origins of the triune god

How did all  of this Trinity  nonsense begin?? The New  Catholic Encyclopedia tells us, “The  doctrine of the Trinity  is not  taught in  the  Old Testament.” This should not be surprising to you since Jewish theology  is nearly identical to that of Islam  and the Muslims. According to the Illustrated Bible Dictionary,  however, “The word Trinity  is not  found in the theology  of the church till the fourth century.” It is a  fact  that none of the disciples  ever heard of this word “Trinity” in their lifetimes. Generations of  Christians  would come and go over a span of three-and-a-half centuries that never knew of  the triune Christian god. Here are how some of the  pre-Nicene  Christian scholars  and theologians felt about  the nature of Jesus:

a)  Justin Martyr  (165 CE) – Believed Jesus to be a created angel, NOT EQUAL TO GOD.

b)  Irenaeus  (200 CE)  – Believed Jesus to  be inferior to “the one true and only  God,” and NOT EQUAL TO GOD.

c)  Clement of Alexandria  (215 CE) – Believed the Son to be next to  the “only  omnipotent Father,” and therefore NOT EQUAL TO GOD.

d)  Tertullian  (230 CE) – Believed  Jesus to be inferior because  he  was begotten and sent by  God, NOT EQUAL TO GOD.

e)  Origen  (250 CE) – Believed Jesus and the Father to have two separate essences and substances that  were NOT EQUAL.

Unlike Judaism  and Islam  whose articles of faith were laid down by  the  founders of  their respective religions, Christianity’s articles and doctrine  were always  decided upon in  councils and church synods centuries after its founder. The Roman Empire under Constantine was riddled with major political and religious strife. Constantine, a worshipper of the  Solen Victus, the conquering sun-god, saw in a vision one day the figure of a cross illuminated by  the  light of the sun. He immediately  interpreted this as a sign from  Mithras that he would be  victorious on the  battlefield. After dealing a crushing  blow  to the enemy, he apparently converted to the religion of the persecuted Christians although he  would not be baptized until years later as he lay dying in his bed. 

In 325 CE it was this very  Constantine who presided over the infamous  Council of Nicea in  which Jesus was  declared as co-equal,  co-eternal,  and  cosubstantial with the Father and which also laid  the groundwork for the doctrine of the Trinity. Most of the 300 bishops present signed the new dogma into effect although  many  did so hesitantly.  The  Son of God  had now officially  become  God the Son. This was followed by  a mass genocidal campaign of all Christians who did not believe  as they  were told. Constantine’s leading opponent, Arius, was humbled before the council and promptly  anathematized. 

One Nazarene  sect in particular, the  Eubonites, asserted that Jesus was  only  a servant and chosen Messenger of  God who was sent by  Him  to guide the formal and legalistic Children  of Israel into harmony  by teaching them the true spirit of the law. The Eubonites did not believe that Christ was divine in any  way,  and only  considered Matthew’s  Gospel as authentic while declaring Paul a heretic and an apostate. Due to their strong convictions that Jesus was the  true Christ, they elected not to participate in the doomed  bar Kokhba rebellion of 132 CE, which promoted Simon  “the son  of the star” as being the Jewish Messiah.  Not long after the failed insurrection, Simon was  assassinated by  the Romans and declared “bar Koziba,” “the son of the lie.”

You may  come across some Christian  authors who will claim  that the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) actually came into contact with some  surviving remnants of an Eubonite community  and was instructed by  them  to reject Christ’s  divinity.  Such foolish assertions  are backed by  not even a  shred of historical evidence  and causes one to wonder just  how  this could have even been possible since the entire Eubonite  population  was systematically  exterminated by  the Trinitarians shortly after the Synod at Nicea  almost 250  years prior to the birth of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

In 381 CE Emperor Theodosius convened the Council of  Constantinople to  determine the role and nature of the Holy Ghost. After  much  deliberation,  the Council decided that the Holy  Ghost was  also in fact God, the third of three persons in the Holy Trinity. 

The Athanasian Creed, named after a clergyman of the mid-third century, spelled out exactly  the dictates of the various Councils: “The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy  Spirit  is God,  yet not three Gods but  one God.” Athanasius was present at Nicea and supported the decree of Constantine and his frightened bishops. Born and raised in Alexandria, Egypt,  he became  very much influenced by  the Pagan Egyptian concept of  god as a triad. 

The Church  credits another theologian from  the same period, Augustine,  as being one of the chief developers of  modern Christianity  for  his work entitled, On the Trinity.

Rather than rooting  out idolatry  and  Paganism whenever it  went, Christianity  actually  adopted the Paganism  and idolatry  of various cultures and “Christianized” them  as their own. Contrast this to how Islam  spread over the globe as a light of shining Truth that was never influenced by any sort of false teaching. 

The Christian may  take issue with  you and claim that Islam’s God, Allah, was actually  a Pagan deity  of pre-Islamic  Arabia [read this: Refuting the Baseless Claim that Allah is a ‘Moon-god’] . Remind him  that  Allah, the Semitic name  of God used by Moses (Elohah) and Jesus (Allaha), was the same deity  that the Prophet Ishmael (Isma’eel alayhissalaam) worshipped  while he lived  in  the Arabian peninsula  (we will be posting prophecies in Bible regarding the coming of the  Kedarite  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) soon In Shaa Allah). This is also the name  of  God used by  contemporary  Christian Arabs and Arabic speaking Jews. In its origins the name  “Allah” was  true but was later  corrupted by descendants of Ishmael who had fallen away  from  the tradition of their forefather Abraham.  By contrast, the  origins of the triune god were Pagan and later incorporated into Christian theology as the “one true God.” Let  your Christian friend see the difference. 

Pagan triad deities worshipped in  ancient Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt:

a)  The triad of  Anu, the god  of the sky,  Enlil, the god of the earth, and Ea, the god of the ocean.

b) The triad of Ishtar, Sin, and Shamash in Babylon.

c)  The Hindu triad of  Brahma,  the creator,  Shiva,  the destroyer, and Vishnu, the maintainer.

d) The Egyptian triad of Amon-Ra, Ramses II, and Mut.

e) The Egyptian triad of Horus, Isis, and Osiris. 


To my Muslim Brethren…

Praise be to  the One who has guided us and made us Muslims bowing to His Will. It is truly  the greatest tragedy  of human history  that over a billion Christians stand alienated from  the truth of Islam  over a theology  that  is not  even  found  in  their own scripture. Help your  Christian friends to understand that their theology is  outside the  tradition of  all the mighty prophets and  apostles of  God that were sent with  the same basic  message:  There is only  one God,  and Abraham, Moses, Noah,  David, Jesus,  or  Muhammad is the Messenger of God.  Help  your Christian  friends understand that God does  not change His spiritual laws because He  Himself cannot change. For God to become man or become revealed  as three persons is incongruent with the  majesty  of Him  who has created the heavens and the earth. 

At the basic  level, explain to the Christian why belief in the  Trinity  has no basis as being from  the God of Abraham.  Be careful that you do  not  offend him  while attempting to do this. As with the divinity  of Christ, belief in the Trinity  has always  been a personal conviction  of  faith that the Christian has been enamored with since he was a young  boy or  girl  in  the church.  As usual, begin  on a  basic level and use reasonable arguments. I cannot stress enough the importance of freeing Christians from  this absolutely  false theology, a theology  that only  beckons  to the fire. Emulate  our beloved Prophet  (sallallahu  alaihi wa  sallam) by  dealing gently and speaking with humility.

Questions to ask your Christian friends. 

1.  How can  Jesus die as both God and man when his divine spirit  survived the  cross?  If  you believe that he was one person with two natures (man and God), then don’t BOTH natures have to die in the same way??  After all, our nature is  really  who  we are. How can he die as God without his divine  nature dying that  made  him God?? Can’t you see that he only  died as a man??

2.  Why  is God  never explicit about the doctrine of the Trinity  in the Old and New Testaments??  Why  would He wait until the fourth century  to completely  reveal Himself in three persons??

3.  Why  do  you believe that God sacrificed His Son when Jesus  was  given his life back after three  days?? You only sacrifice something when it doesn’t return to you.

4.  Did  you know that according to Paul, “changing the glory  of incorruptible God  into an image  like that or corruptible man” (Romans 1:22-25) is  the cause of homosexuality??

5.  Did you know  that the only  verse in the entire Bible that explicitly mentions Trinitarian doctrine (1 John 5:7) was expunged from  all  modern Bible translations and deemed a fabrication to the text??

6.  Why  would  Jesus quote  the sacred Shema of the Jews found in Deuteronomy  6:4 if he  were sent by God to preach the concept of three in one??  Did  you know that  the word  echad  that Jesus  uses in Mark 12:29 cannot denote any  type of plurality  when used in reference of  God, and this is  exactly  how the Jews understood it??

7.  Did  you know that just because  Jesus  amended the Sabbath, knew people’s thoughts, and had the ability to forgive sins  makes him no different than Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) who changed  the direction of prayer, abrogated the Sabbath, knew people’s intentions and hidden motives, and forgave sins as  well (by  the leave of God)?? Don’t  you  think  that  prophets could have done these things?? 

8.  Why  do Christians claim that  Elohim  justifies the Trinity  when this word  literally  means “Gods??” Certainly  you don’t  believe in a  plurality  of  gods, but rather persons of God.

9.  Are you aware of the Pagan origins of  the triune or triad god?? Did  you know  that the Trinity  wasn’t even firmly  established as  doctrine in the churches until late in the fourth century CE?? 

10.  Did  you know that the name  Allah was the same name  that Moses and Jesus used to address the Almighty??

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??


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.


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.


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 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.


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)


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).


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.


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.”


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.