The Bible's Own Contradictions of the Crucifixion

[Lulua]

BismAllah Alrahman Alrahim


I see that it has been mentioned here in the past some of the contradictions found within the Bible. When something you believe in is being attacked, it is only natural to attempt to protect it in some way, even if that means attacking that of importance of them who is attacking your own belief. This is not the purpose of this message. The purpose of this message is to bring to broad view the contradictions in the Bible of some important aspects which are part of the basis to the tenets of today’s Christians.

Since today’s Christianity is not based on true monotheism, but the equating of Jesus as a part of the divinity, or including him into a ‘trinity’ and therefore a separation of the divinity from one entity into three, I have some questions to raise, which I have attained from the Bible itself.

If the Bible is to be believed in it’s entirety, then there should be no contradictions of some of the most basic elements, including the events leading up to and including and following the crucifixion.

In the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, there is evidence as to a message written above Jesus on his cross, giving a sarcastical identification as to who he is. It was not necessary, since there was such a commotion in the events which led up to that stage, for even those who may not have known who he was, surely learned quickly, through the commotion itself of the ‘trial’ and the crowd’s own insistence upon his being crucified. However, in reference to this message itself, there is contradiction among the four gospels as to what that message itself said, or read. It is assumed that the authors of the four gospels were each companions, or apostles of Jesus. If they were so close to him, and if they were each present at the time of the crucifixion, then how is it that they could not agree as to the message or title that was posted above Jesus on his own cross?

Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (John 19:19)

Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Matthew 27:37)

The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS.
(Mark 15:25-26)

There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Luke 23:38)

Granted, the difference in the wordings in each is slight, but there is a difference all the same. In two of the versions it gives his name, Jesus, while two of the versions omit that. Then, one version merely says ‘the king of the Jews’, while another says ‘THIS is the king of the Jews’. Also, one was quite specific, as to identifying him as ‘Jesus of Nazareth’, while none of the others gave such specific identification.

In reference to the cross, and who carried it, you will find that (Mark 15:21), (matthew 27:32), and (Luke 23:26) all give reference that a man called Simon from Cyrene was given the cross to carry to the area of the crucifixion. Only in the remaining one gospel, do we find that something else entirely different is told.

Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). (John 19:17)

Which of the gospels is to be believed? I have asked Christians this, and have received answers in the affirmative, that it is to be believed that the existing Bible of today is God’s word. How is that to be believed, when such a basic and important aspect of the history of the religion cannot be agreed upon? If it is truly the word of God…then how can there be such discrepancies? And…if it is to be known that one of these above stories is incorrect, then what is the defining factor which tells people what is actually correct and what is not?

You see, this is a basic argument against the reliability and dependability and the truth of the existing Bible of today as being the actual Word of God. There is much question here.

One basic tenet of belief of today’s Christianity is the ‘incarnation’ factor, or the belief of God coming to earth in the man’s body (i.e. Jesus). We are told in the Quran, reminded, actually, as to the existence and creation of Jesus, comparing him to that of Adam, that it is something of the Will of God…and whatever God deems to be, becomes.

Christians like to try to press the point of the ideal that God is in man’s form in Jesus. Yet, there is a previous verse in the Bible itself which actually refutes this ideology.

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19)

Now…are we to take it that this verse is irrelevant to this topic? Or is it that this verse comes from the Old Testament and therefore not applicable? Or is it possible that this verse is not the word of God…and if that is so…then what is it doing in the Bible? Do not Christians claim that what is in the Bible is God’s word? And, if this is truly the word of God, then what about the later claims to the divinity of Christ Jesus? Why all this contradictions?

In the following verse, we are told something quite different:

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He[3] appeared in a body,[4] was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
(1 Timothy 3: 1-16)


Even in the Bible, as well as the Quran, we are told that Jesus was born of Mary. Mary was a woman, simply human. No divinity to Mary. Regardless of her good lineage. She was a woman, part of humanity. And Jesus was born of her, she was impregnated by the Will of God, after receiving the news herself personally from the Holy Spirit. Christians hold the rank of Jesus very high among men, and above all men. As far as Muslims are concerned, all the messengers and prophets are regarded in the same and similar light of respect and devotion.

‘The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His Books, and His Messengers. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His Messengers." And they say: "We hear, and we obey, (we seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."’ S. 2, v. 285.

In the following verse from the Bible, it is told to us from the preceding verses that Jesus himself is speaking:

I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John(Luke 7:28)

Now, where does this fit in consistency with the Christian faith and belief, in that it is evident that Jesus himself was born of a human woman…and yet the Christians themselves are raising Jesus to a level of divinity and as they are interpreting it, deserving of worship? If here…in the Bible…Jesus himself is telling people that of those born of women, there is no one greater than John?

As for the discovery that Jesus was no longer in his place at the tomb where they had left him after taking him down from the cross, there is also much disagreement and inconsistency in this part of the story. It would be assumed or imagined that such an important aspect to the religion would have more consistency about it.

For the sake of space here, I have not presented exact quotes, but a summary of what is in the verses. I have given the references of the verses, so that those of you questioning my own authority may easily go and check this out for yourselves.

In Luke 24:1-12, it is told that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and some others are the ones who first discovered Jesus’ disappearance from the tomb. In this version, it is also told that 2 men (or rather angels in men’s appearance) were there at the place, and reminded them of the reason of Jesus’ absence from the place (i.e. his resurrection after death).

In Matthew 28:1-5, it is said that only Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (who is this ‘other’ Mary? Mary was a quite common name then, and there were many even in relation to the many stories of Jesus) were the ones who discovered Jesus’ disappearance from the tomb. In this version it is also told that only one angel appeared to them.

In Mark 16:1-5, it is listed that Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Salome (hmm…where did Joanna go?) were the ones to discover his disappearance. In this version, it is also told that only one man (or angel in man’s disguise) appeared at the tomb.

In John 20:1-12, it is mentioned only the name of Mary Magdalene who discovered Jesus’ disappearance (where did all the others go now?), and that she quickly told Peter, and apparently Simon Peter (who was first referred to in these verses as ‘the one who Jesus loved’…didn’t he love all his apostles, or all mankind, for that matter?). It is also told in this version that 2 angels appeared at the tomb at her time of the discovery.

Why so much discrepancy? Which gospel is to be believed and followed? And, if you have the answer for that, upon what criteria did you base your decision as to that?

During the crucifixion, two important things happened. One was that, as is told in all the versions of the gospels, there were two common criminals on either side of Jesus, being crucified at the same time and place as him. There is discrepancy as to what those criminals said in reference to Jesus and his presence among them, and in reference to his preaching and his mission. If anything was said at all, even. Again, as has been proven to be quite consistent of the whole Bible, and the gospels in particular, there is inconsistency on this aspect, as well.

In Luke 23:38-43, it is told that the two criminals being crucified along with Jesus had some words, the first accusingly pleading with Jesus, that if he was indeed the Christ, and could have saved so many, then why did he not do something to save them there in their positions? At this, the other criminal replied in defense of Jesus, asking him (Jesus) to remember him upon his arrival to paradise, at which Jesus promised him of his future in paradise. This is the only rendition of this particular conversation to have taken place.

In Mark 15:28-32, it is quoted that not only the priests and those witnessing the crucifixion torted Jesus in such a manner, teasing him that he did so much in his life to save others, yet he could not apparently save himself at this stage…but as well the quote of evidence of the two criminals is as such: ‘Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.’

Where does this lie in reference to the previous rendition that the two criminals were on opposite sides…one accusingly pleading with Jesus to help them, yet the other defending Jesus and his position, even asking for his remembrance of him in heaven?

Another interesting incident at the time of the crucifixion, which is relayed only in the gospel of John, yet omitted in all the others, goes as follows:

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. (John 19:25-27)

It is an interesting an touching human aspect of this rendition of the crucifixion. However, I find it rather questionable and interesting that it is omitted in all the other gospels. It’s omission, of course, does not in itself refute it’s truth that it happened. However, in view of all the previously pointed out inconsistencies and discrepancies, it is questionable that it even occurred. We have seen by what I have pointed out, some very serious and major discrepancies in the Bible, all in relation to the crucifixion, as well as the time leading up to it, and the time following it.

Another interesting incident during the time of the crucifixion, is the renditions given as to the last words of Jesus.

John 19:30 tells us that after Jesus’ having complained of being thirsty, and then given a dripple of a wine-vinegar mixture on a sponge, then his last words were ‘It is finished’ just before his last breath.

Mark 15:34-41 tells us that Jesus exclaimed ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ (meaning ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’), and then a bit later, as appears in the scripture itself: ‘with a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last’.

Matthew 27:46-54 also claims the same words and scene as which is described in Mark.

Luke 23:46-47 depicts something else entirely spoken by Jesus. ‘ “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” When he had said this, he breathed his last.’ Also, it is only in this rendition by Luke, that it is mentioned of what the centurion on guard said as: ‘Surely this was a righteous man.’

After this session in which Jesus apparently exclaimed something, and then breathed his last breath before expiring, there are some varying renditions of what the reaction was of the guarding centurion at the site of the crucifixion.

In Luke 23, it is recorded that the centurion remarks, about Jesus, at this time of his death and exasperation of his last breath with those last words that he is recorded to have said, that the centurion remarks his observation that ‘this was a righteous man.

In Matthew 27 and Mark 15 alike, it is recorded that the centurion remarks of his certainty or his final realization that this was, in fact, the Son of God.

The Book of John has no reference to any comment that the centurion might have said.

Again, in all, the varying versions and interpretations of what went on at this most important and crucial time of history, yet the differing views and memories of these very apostles of Jesus…the authors of the gospels.

The word or name of the gospel itself, has gained such attribution to the name of the ‘gospel’ itself, that the word or name ‘gospel’ is equated with truth. In light of all the discrepancies and questionable renditions that are found within the four gospels, it is quite questionable as to how the word gospel has achieved such a high standard of reliability. It is even a popular quote, when someone is trying to prove his/her truth of the matter of which he or she is speaking, to mention it as ‘the gospel truth’. In accordance to what I have seen of the gospels, and noticed of the complete and drastic inconsistencies and discrepancies, I would not ever want to refer to anything that I say as ‘the gospel truth’. That in itself is an utter contradiction in itself.

....Lulua.

[xpoint]

it is sad; now gospels are lost in unknown dimensions become of some stupid kind.

regardless, how much the Quran says not to do anything against jews/christians; the more they remind me of their stupid move and make my mind bitter everytime.

o allah! give me patience and guidance, so that i can be in your favourable path.

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 29-10-01 AT 11:57 PM (GMT)[p]For the sake of space, I will not reply to each verse you raise one by one yet. I'll post that later.

You, yourself, admit that some of the apparent contradictions you found are insignificant, such as an inscription that says "THIS is the king of the Jews" compared to slightly different wording. Other contradictions would seem a little more significant, such as differences in the resurrection accounts. Still others seem very significant, such as a verse that seems to imply God is not a man, compared to the Christian assertion that Jesus is God.

As a general principle, the gospels were written by human beings under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. However, Christian theology does not assert that these men lost consciousness when they wrote. Even Isaiah, Ezekiel, and John were not writing at the moment they had their ecstatic visions, and all three were conscious enough to quote other Scripture and use contemporary figures of speech. We Christians do not believe that the words of Scriptures were dictated by an angel, or any such thing. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not override the human personality. Each of the four gospels reveals common truths about Christ. However, each of the four gospels also has its unique literary style that reveals something of the author's personality.

Mark is a Palestinian Jew writing to a Roman church very early in the tradition. His Greek is grammatically awful, and he emphasizes Jewish concepts to a community unfamiliar with Jewish practices. His style is to create a mystique that forces the question of who Jesus is, without trying to provide all the answers. Matthew is a Greek Jew, or Greek convert to Judaism writing to a Middle Eastern community of Jews who accepted Christ. His style is to quote the Old Testament and address Jewish objections to the divinity and messianic character of Jesus. He also addresses issues of church order. Luke is a well-educated Greek physician who emphasizes the universal character of salvation in Jesus, and he purposefully downplays some of the more obscure Jewish notions of Jesus' life. John writes in exquisite Greek, but interweaves Jewish mystical theology and allusions to the Old Testament so carefully into the text that only those most familiar with the Old Testament see them. He crafts his texts with appeal to both Greek and Jew, and his style is so lofty as to continue to be the most appealing gospel to many people.

The entire New Testament is the earliest written testimony to the meaning of Jesus life and teaching, and tradition maintains that Mark and John knew Jesus, while Paul and Luke knew the 12 apostles. We also have letters of Peter, and some writings (Hebrews) where the authorship is questionable, but other early saints quoted the texts within the first or early second century. Muslims are generally mistaken when they appeal to Gnostic writings to argue against Christianity, since those writings can be demonstrated to be of later origin. There was no tampering with the earliest texts, which can be demonstrated by the consistency of various translations across different geographic regions and throughout Christian history.

The same issue of contradictions and the personality of the author shining through a text can be said of the Koran (and yes -- I have read the Koran, and I have been re-reading it since Sept 11, 2001 in order to try to understood the Muslim point of view about what's happening regarding terrorism). As an aside, I do not wish to go through the Koran verse by verse like you do with the Bible (it would take too much time). However, I find contradictions in the Koran left and right. Particularly in light of the tragedy of Sept 11, 2001 I see verses clearly saying we Christians deserve to die, and other verses saying there should be no compulsion in religion and that the people of the Book should be respected.

Regarding that we Christians deserve to die at the hands of Muslims, The Koran states in Sura 5:85, "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans." Then in Sura 9:5 it adds, "fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them. And lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. Then Surat Al-Maidah 5:51 tells Muslims: "O ye who believe, take not the Jews or Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you who turns to them is of them." It appears that Mohammed said one thing when he was politically weak, and another when he was politically strong. Suffice it to say, I find Mohammed's personality and historical circumstances shining through every page of this often-contradictory work!

Every author of the Christian Scripture was writing truths based on the traditions handed on to her or him, and they were writing to specific local communities. Thus, they crafted their story in language the local church understood, and they remembered those events in the Lord's life that were significant to the particular issues they were trying to address. That is the general principal behind the differences.

I am a Roman Catholic, but I think my Protestant friends say it best: "The main things are in the plain, and the plain is in the main." It's a catchy little rhyme that sums up what most Christians believe about the so-called contradictions you point out. God inspired the whole work, and there are certain truths proclaimed loud and clear, over and over again. Then, there are apparent contradictions with a verse here and a verse there that it takes some intense study to resolve. These are not the most important parts of the Bible, though all Scripture is profitable.

My point is that it's OK to take some time to struggle with the texts, study and pray over the more difficult passages. Christians are encouraged to critically engage the texts (see my response to the Jesus seminar). I don't know if Muslims are as willing as Christians to critically engage their own texts. However, I will point out that even in the Koran, there are letters at the beginning of some suras that "Nobody but Allah knows what they mean". Let's assume the Koran is God's revelation. Why would God put confusing things in his revelation like these letter or the apparent contradictions I see? -- Because his ways are not our ways!

And this study that I encourage for Christian Scripture does need to be intense if you really need answers -- but there are answers to your questions. For me to address all the verses you raise (both those you admit are insignificant, and those we both would admit are more significant) I would need to write a book. But more astute scholars than myself have already written books. See the works of John Meir, Joseph Fitzpatrick, Gary Habermas, Van Rad, and so many other Biblical scholars. But other than the issue of the divinity of Christ, the things you are picking on are not the main and plain things that are important.

As to the divinity of Christ, when the apostle Thomas says to the Risen Lord, "My Lord and my God", Jesus does not correct him. (John 20:28). Likewise, in the book of Revelation (1:17), Christ refers to himself as the First and the Last, which was a term used for God alone (see Isaiah 44:6). For more discussion on the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, see my response to your article entitled "Who Invented the Trinity?”

Christians believe that God became human so that human beings might be divinized and share in the very life of God. In Christ, the Scriptures are clear that God became flesh and lived the perfect life on our behalf. Though he was without sin, he was crucified, accepting the penalty of unrighteousness, though he was righteous. He bore our sins on the cross, and he conquered death and sin by rising from the dead. He shares his Spirit with us down to our own day. We are not saved by our own works, but by faith in Jesus that produces works through grace. These are the main and plain things that emerge from the New Testament over and over. If you buy a Bible that cross-references the two Testaments, you see that the New Testament is hidden in the Old. If you read straight through the Bible Genesis to Revelation (and I have), the coherent whole begins to emerge.

Will there be apparent contradictions? Yes. Will there be passages difficult to understand? Yes. Will there be idioms and turns of speech that strike the modern ear as odd? Absolutely. BUT, I have found the same is true of the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Gnostic Gospels (which are actually the strangest religious literature I've studied), the Upanishads, the Tao Te Ching, and other religious texts I have read.

Indeed, to me, the most appealing thing about the Bible is it's amazing CONSISTENCY on the main and plain things even though it was written by several authors over hundreds of years by people who often claimed no explicit awareness of divine inspiration. These other texts (Koran, Book of Mormon, Gnostic Gospels) are written mostly by single authors in a single life-time by people claiming to be copying divine dictation -- yet they all have as many or more contradictions as the Bible, and their contradictions are often more theologically significant! Furthermore, I just do not find them as meaningful.

Ultimately, it is what Christianity MEANS -- a personal relationship with a loving God who loved creation enough to become part of it and save us -- that is what you must argue against to convince a mature Christian that their religion is false. It is the MEANING that the Christian story gives to life that keeps me Christian through times of intellectual questioning, as well as personal turmoil. You cannot argue against that by citing verses out of context. You must show how that story is not meaningful to change my mind.

.... And I would challenge you that it impossible to present a more attractive image of the one true God than portrayed in Jesus!

Islam has much to admire. I honestly wish that all Christians would pray as openly and as frequently as Muslims. I wish that all Christians knew their Scriptures. With Muslims, I believe that adultery, drunkenness, and theft are serious sins. I admire the scholarship of Islam that gave the West our number system and so much other knowledge that might have been lost during the barbarian invasions of the so-called Dark Ages in Europe. My wife and I attempt to follow the morning and evening prayer pattern of Christian monks. The monks have always prayed eight times a day, and Mohammed was probably copying some of their spirituality when he instituted prayer five times a day. I also pray privately at other times throughout the day than morning and evening. However, even the Koran admits that some Muslims are hypocrites; just as some Christians do not fully understand or practice their faith. But the main reason I remain Christian is that the Bible paints what I consider to be a more beautiful image God than I find in the Koran.

If you were Christian before, what changed your mind to Islam?

[jcecil3]

I have decided to finally respond point by point -- just to demonstarte that Christians can make sense of all this without being intellectually dishonest. I will use a dialogue form to clarify Lulua's original post from my comments:

LULUA: BismAllah Alrahman Alrahim

JCECIL3: What does that mean?

LULUA: I see that it has been mentioned here in the past some of the contradictions found within the Bible. When something you believe in is being attacked, it is only natural to attempt to protect it in some way, even if that means attacking that of importance of them who is attacking your own belief. This is not the purpose of this message. The purpose of this message is to bring to broad view the contradictions in the Bible of some important aspects which are part of the basis to the tenets of today’s Christians.

JCECIL3: It is true that people become defensive when something they believe is attacked. Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the infallible word of God. Therefore, Christians are defensive when their beliefs about Jesus are attacked by Islam. Muslims are defensive when Christians say the Qur’an is incorrect about what it says about Jesus. My point is simply that we both (Christians and Muslims) can be defensive. This doesn’t establish who is correct about Jesus.

LULUA: Since today’s Christianity is not based on true monotheism, but the equating of Jesus as a part of the divinity, or including him into a ‘trinity’ and therefore a separation of the divinity from one entity into three, I have some questions to raise, which I have attained from the Bible itself.

JCECIL3: Christians do not say there are three God’s. Nor are there three beings in God. Nor are there three persons in one person. Rather, we say there is one God, and there are three persons in this one being called God. We do not believe that WE equate Jesus with God. Rather, we believe that the one God has revealed himself personally in Jesus.

LULUA: If the Bible is to be believed in it’s entirety, then there should be no contradictions of some of the most basic elements, including the events leading up to and including and following the crucifixion.

JCECIL3: This is an imposition of human reasoning upon God’s word. In other words, you cannot prove that God’s word would contain no contradiction a priori. Maybe God thinks more like a poet than a mathematician, at least in his relationship with us. Christians believe that the word of God is revealed in the words of human beings. The Bible is written by many human beings speaking human language over a long period of time. Therefore, while we do believe that the Bible is internally consistent in theology, it does not necessarily follow that it MUST be internally consistent in every detail. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t. Many Christians believe that it is, but there is no reason to assume that it must be! Human beings speak in idioms, parables, proverbs, hyperbole, metaphors, poetry, and so forth. It is entirely possible for an apparent contradiction to take place if we read poetry or metaphor as literal history. Thus, Christians are aware that the Bible contains ‘apparent’ contradictions. However, these contradictions can be understood when we dig into the text to understand the circumstances at the time of composition and the intent of the human author.

LULUA: In the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, there is evidence as to a message written above Jesus on his cross, giving a sarcastical identification as to who he is. It was not necessary, since there was such a commotion in the events which led up to that stage, for even those who may not have known who he was, surely learned quickly, through the commotion itself of the ‘trial’ and the crowd’s own insistence upon his being crucified. However, in reference to this message itself, there is contradiction among the four gospels as to what that message itself said, or read. It is assumed that the authors of the four gospels were each companions, or apostles of Jesus. If they were so close to him, and if they were each present at the time of the crucifixion, then how is it that they could not agree as to the message or title that was posted above Jesus on his own cross?

LULUA: Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (John 19:19)

LULUA: Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Matthew 27:37)

LULUA: The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS.
(Mark 15:25-26)

LULUA: There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Luke 23:38)

JCECIL3: The issue here is not inconsistency among the authors. Rather, the issue is with the languages themselves. The inscriptions were written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek (John 19:20). English has definite articles and pronouns, whereas Greek, Hebrew, and Latin do not all share the same grammatical rules. It is entirely possible and probable that one language used on the cross contained an article, while another did not. The gospel writers do not even attempt to convey the literal words in each language used on the cross. Rather, each author reports the gist of what the inscription read as he remembers it.

LULUA: Granted, the difference in the wordings in each is slight, but there is a difference all the same. In two of the versions it gives his name, Jesus, while two of the versions omit that. Then, one version merely says ‘the king of the Jews’, while another says ‘THIS is the king of the Jews’. Also, one was quite specific, as to identifying him as ‘Jesus of Nazareth’, while none of the others gave such specific identification.

LULUA: In reference to the cross, and who carried it, you will find that (Mark 15:21), (matthew 27:32), and (Luke 23:26) all give reference that a man called Simon from Cyrene was given the cross to carry to the area of the crucifixion. Only in the remaining one gospel, do we find that something else entirely different is told.

LULUA: Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). (John 19:17)

JCECIL3: There is no contradiction here. Most non-scholarly Christians simply believe that Jesus started out carrying his own cross, and fell after being lashed by the Romans. Too weak to carry the cross the rest of the way, the soldiers enlisted Simon of Cyrene to carry it the rest of the way. A more scholarly approach suggest that the Gospel of John is making a theological point that Jesus carries the weight of our sins, while the synoptic gospels may be more historically accurate. The Romans did not typically make a man carry his own cross, though it would not be out of character for Pilate’s forces to have ordered it out of cruelty. Pilate was known for his cruelty in secular sources. The gospels are not written to be dry histories. They are catechetical sermons of faith. Thus, nobody expects them to convey history in the fashion of a newspaper or a text-book. Rather, each gospel writer is interpreting the crucifixion and resurrection event.

LULUA: Which of the gospels is to be believed? I have asked Christians this, and have received answers in the affirmative, that it is to be believed that the existing Bible of today is God’s word. How is that to be believed, when such a basic and important aspect of the history of the religion cannot be agreed upon? If it is truly the word of God…then how can there be such discrepancies? And…if it is to be known that one of these above stories is incorrect, then what is the defining factor which tells people what is actually correct and what is not?

JCECIL3: The gospel writers were theologians, not historians. This does not mean that there is no history behind the text. All of the gospels agree that Jesus was a real human person who was crucified and rose form the dead. All of the gospels attempt to interpret this event in light of the Old Testament. However, the accurate reporting of bare facts is not their intent. Nor should the reader approach the text expecting minute details of history. When we say these texts are the word of God, we mean that the texts convey the truth God intended for our salvation. Every verse has spiritual meaning and significance. However, the minutia of history is neither important to salvation, nor intended by the authors, nor intended by God. Mark’s Jesus is a mysterious man of action who does things only God can do. The author continually places the question of who Jesus is before the reader without proposing a definitive answer except in the deeds of Christ. Matthew’s Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets, and his Jewishness is emphasized in addressing questions of Church order after the fall of Jerusalem. Luke’s Jesus is a more global character who appeals to Romans and Greeks. John’s Christ is the most exalted and carefully weaves together first century Jewish thought with Greek poetry.

LULUA: You see, this is a basic argument against the reliability and dependability and the truth of the existing Bible of today as being the actual Word of God. There is much question here.

JCECIL3: There is no more of a question about this than with any other text claiming religious truth. Do not Imans debate some of the finer points of Qur’anic theology? If not, why are there Sunnis, Sufis, etc…? Christians believe that the gospels provide and the earliest and the primary interpretations of the death and resurrection events in Jesus’ life.

LULUA: One basic tenet of belief of today’s Christianity is the ‘incarnation’ factor, or the belief of God coming to earth in the man’s body (i.e. Jesus). We are told in the Quran, reminded, actually, as to the existence and creation of Jesus, comparing him to that of Adam, that it is something of the Will of God…and whatever God deems to be, becomes.

JCECIL3: And this is why Christians reject the infallibility of the Qur’an. According to the Bible and Christian Tradition, the theological and spiritual truth about Jesus is that while he became fully human, he is Not a CREATED man. Rather, he is the incarnation of the Logos of God, the co-eternal Son of God who is one in being with the Father.

LULUA: Christians like to try to press the point of the ideal that God is in man’s form in Jesus. Yet, there is a previous verse in the Bible itself which actually refutes this ideology.

JCECIL3: Christians do not say that Jesus is merely the form of a man. Rather, he is FULLY human and FULLY God.

LULUA: God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19)

JCECIL3: Daniel 7:13-14 records “As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him, He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed.” Now, Muslims know that Allah alone is the king with an everlasting kingdom. Yet, prphet Daniel (pbuh) is saying that a “son of man” will have an everlasting kingdom! In the passage from Numbers, you focus on the phrase, “God is not a man”. However, it is valid to read the verse as “God is not like a man who lies, nor a son of man who changes his mind”. The point of the text is that God neither lies nor changes his mind. This is not intended to be a metaphysical statement about the nature of God. Rather, it is a revelation about the character of God. On the other hand, in Jesus, the Son of Man who was foretold by Daniel, we have a revelation of the nature of God.

LULUA: Now…are we to take it that this verse is irrelevant to this topic? Or is it that this verse comes from the Old Testament and therefore not applicable? Or is it possible that this verse is not the word of God…and if that is so…then what is it doing in the Bible? Do not Christians claim that what is in the Bible is God’s word? And, if this is truly the word of God, then what about the later claims to the divinity of Christ Jesus? Why all this contradictions?

JCECIL3: The option you have not considered is that the verse does NOT say that God cannot be a man. Rather, the verse in Numbers DOES say that God cannot be evil like men who lie and change their minds. The verse is about the character of God, rather than the nature of God.

LULUA: In the following verse, we are told something quite different:

LULUA: Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He<3> appeared in a body,<4> was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
(1 Timothy 3: 1-16)

JCECIL3: Amen!

LULUA: Even in the Bible, as well as the Quran, we are told that Jesus was born of Mary. Mary was a woman, simply human. No divinity to Mary.

JCECIL3: Even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, who seek the prayers of Mary and hold great devotion for her, agree entirely with your statement here. Mary is a woman, a creature, not divine in any way. Catholics even believe that she is without sin. However, even her lack of sin is entirely dependant on a special grace of God, and is nothing she earned on her own.

LULUA: Regardless of her good lineage. She was a woman, part of humanity. And Jesus was born of her, she was impregnated by the Will of God, after receiving the news herself personally from the Holy Spirit.

JCECIL3: All Christians also hold to the statement that Mary was a woman, a creature, and part of humanity – except that it is not true that Jesus had perfect lineage. In the genealogies in the Gospel according to Matthew, an incestuous woman (Tamar), a harlot (Rahab), a foreigner (Ruth), an adulteress (Beth-Sheba), are all part of the lineage of Jesus along with Abraham, David and other great heroes of faith. Christ came to save all people, including sinful women!

LULUA: Christians hold the rank of Jesus very high among men, and above all men. As far as Muslims are concerned, all the messengers and prophets are regarded in the same and similar light of respect and devotion.

JCECIL3: This does not appear to be a true statement about Islam. Islam holds Mohammed as the last and greatest prophet: “The Seal” of the prophets. Christians believe that since Mohammed got it wrong about Jesus, he’s not a prophet. He is a great poet and statesman at best.

LULUA: ‘The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His Books, and His Messengers. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His Messengers." And they say: "We hear, and we obey, (we seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."’ S. 2, v. 285.

JCECIL3: Then what does it mean to say that Mohammed is the “Seal of the Prophets” and to hold him above the authors of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John (whom Christians believe to be apostolic witnesses).

LULUA: In the following verse from the Bible, it is told to us from the preceding verses that Jesus himself is speaking:

LULUA: I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John(Luke 7:28)

JCECIL3: Christians believe that John the Baptist, not Mohammed, was the last of the great prophets foretelling what God would complete in Christ. The role of prophecy after Jesus changes because we now look back to what the Old Testament prophets looked forward to: God’s dwelling among us!

LULUA: Now, where does this fit in consistency with the Christian faith and belief, in that it is evident that Jesus himself was born of a human woman…and yet the Christians themselves are raising Jesus to a level of divinity and as they are interpreting it, deserving of worship? If here…in the Bible…Jesus himself is telling people that of those born of women, there is no one greater than John?

JCECIL3: John is the greatest of prophets, and Jesus is more than a prophet. There is no inherent contradiction in this statement. If I said David was the greatest of kings, would that take anything away from saying John is the greatest of prophets? Jesus is not a prophet at all. He is the fulfillment of prophecy!

LULUA: As for the discovery that Jesus was no longer in his place at the tomb where they had left him after taking him down from the cross, there is also much disagreement and inconsistency in this part of the story. It would be assumed or imagined that such an important aspect to the religion would have more consistency about it.

JCECIL3: All accounts consistently tell the story that Mary Magdalene was the first to come to faith, and there were other women with her. All accounts agree that Peter and John were the first of the 12, and the first men to come to faith. All accounts agree that there were ‘other women’ with Mary Magdalene. There would only be a contradiction if any account stated that ONLY Mary Magdalene saw Christ, or that the men came to faith first. Though the accounts differ in perspective, there is no contradiction in the accounts.

LULUA: For the sake of space here, I have not presented exact quotes, but a summary of what is in the verses. I have given the references of the verses, so that those of you questioning my own authority may easily go and check this out for yourselves.

LULUA: In Luke 24:1-12, it is told that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and some others are the ones who first discovered Jesus’ disappearance from the tomb. In this version, it is also told that 2 men (or rather angels in men’s appearance) were there at the place, and reminded them of the reason of Jesus’ absence from the place (i.e. his resurrection after death).

JCECIL3: Luke 24:10 specifically states that there were other women than the persons named in the gospel. Also, verse 9 clarifies that there were other men than the 11 when they ran from the tomb to witness of the resurrection.

LULUA: In Matthew 28:1-5, it is said that only Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (who is this ‘other’ Mary? Mary was a quite common name then, and there were many even in relation to the many stories of Jesus) were the ones who discovered Jesus’ disappearance from the tomb. In this version it is also told that only one angel appeared to them.

JCECIL3: You are inserting the word “only” in the first sentence above. This word is not found in the text. You do the same in the last sentence.

LULUA: In Mark 16:1-5, it is listed that Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Salome (hmm…where did Joanna go?) were the ones to discover his disappearance. In this version, it is also told that only one man (or angel in man’s disguise) appeared at the tomb.

JCECIL3: Again, you are imposing the word “only” into the texts….

LULUA: In John 20:1-12, it is mentioned only the name of Mary Magdalene who discovered Jesus’ disappearance (where did all the others go now?), and that she quickly told Peter, and apparently Simon Peter (who was first referred to in these verses as ‘the one who Jesus loved’…didn’t he love all his apostles, or all mankind, for that matter?). It is also told in this version that 2 angels appeared at the tomb at her time of the discovery.

JCECIL3: As stated above, Mary Magdalene is universally regarded as the first to come to faith in the resurrected Christ. The other women seem to have come to faith before the men. There is no indication of the exact location where each person was physically standing when each one came to faith. There is also no contradiction in this regard.

JCECIL3: As to Jesus love for the beloved disciple: I love you Lulua. I also love my brother. I love my wife. I love each of you in a different way. Jesus was fully human. Of course he experienced the intimacy of close friendship, and the gospel is clear that one of the disciples enjoyed a very special relationship with him on earth. That does not mean he was not capable of loving the rest of us, and in his resurrected and ascended reality, his love knows no bounds of time and space. Just as the sun shines as brightly on you as it does me, Christ in heaven showers down love equally on all people. However, in his humanity, he shared fully in our experience of finitude and he knows experientially what friendship means!

LULUA: Why so much discrepancy? Which gospel is to be believed and followed? And, if you have the answer for that, upon what criteria did you base your decision as to that?

JCECIL3: All are to be believed and followed. There is no contradiction between them. There is only a shift in emphasis, perspective, and theological interpretation. These are sermons to promote faith, not dry history!

LULUA: During the crucifixion, two important things happened. One was that, as is told in all the versions of the gospels, there were two common criminals on either side of Jesus, being crucified at the same time and place as him. There is discrepancy as to what those criminals said in reference to Jesus and his presence among them, and in reference to his preaching and his mission. If anything was said at all, even. Again, as has been proven to be quite consistent of the whole Bible, and the gospels in particular, there is inconsistency on this aspect, as well.

JCECIL3: I reiterate that the gospels are not intended as dry history. We Christians acknowledge that these writings are interpretations of the events behind the texts. Behind the text is the person and work of Jesus, culminating in the crucifixion event, and a later event described as “resurrection”. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the authors of the New Testament were guided to creatively interpret these events within the context of a church community. The Church affirmed these writings as the faith handed on by the apostles, and discovered that these texts were inspired of God through their use in the liturgy and in prayer.

LULUA: In Luke 23:38-43, it is told that the two criminals being crucified along with Jesus had some words, the first accusingly pleading with Jesus, that if he was indeed the Christ, and could have saved so many, then why did he not do something to save them there in their positions? At this, the other criminal replied in defense of Jesus, asking him (Jesus) to remember him upon his arrival to paradise, at which Jesus promised him of his future in paradise. This is the only rendition of this particular conversation to have taken place.

LULUA: In Mark 15:28-32, it is quoted that not only the priests and those witnessing the crucifixion torted Jesus in such a manner, teasing him that he did so much in his life to save others, yet he could not apparently save himself at this stage…but as well the quote of evidence of the two criminals is as such: ‘Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.’

LULUA: Where does this lie in reference to the previous rendition that the two criminals were on opposite sides…one accusingly pleading with Jesus to help them, yet the other defending Jesus and his position, even asking for his remembrance of him in heaven?

JCECIL3: First the non-scholarly argument: You have to remember that death by crucifixion took several hours. The criminal who defended Jesus must have had an experience of Jesus’ righteousness upon which to base his defense. Thus, he may have begun insulting Jesus, and been converted by Jesus’ reaction. There is no contradiction!

JCECIL3: However, another possibility is simply that Luke was making a theological point about salvation by grace alone to even the most abject sinner. Mark is emphasizing the mystery of who Jesus is by making his death a more lonely event of total abandonment. Again, we need to remember that these texts are not written as dry history books. They are sermons that interpret historical events.

LULUA: Another interesting incident at the time of the crucifixion, which is relayed only in the gospel of John, yet omitted in all the others, goes as follows:

LULUA: Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. (John 19:25-27)

LULUA: It is an interesting and touching human aspect of this rendition of the crucifixion. However, I find it rather questionable and interesting that it is omitted in all the other gospels. Its omission, of course, does not in itself refute its truth that it happened. However, in view of all the previously pointed out inconsistencies and discrepancies, it is questionable that it even occurred. We have seen by what I have pointed out, some very serious and major discrepancies in the Bible, all in relation to the crucifixion, as well as the time leading up to it, and the time following it.

JCECIL3: It does not matter whether the event really historically happened as the author of John reports it. This was the last of the canonical gospels written. By this time, Mary had probably been assumed into heaven. Throughout this gospel, the writer uses Mary as a symbol for the faithful and devoted follower. She is a symbol of the Church in Revelation 12 attributed to the same author. This passage is about Mary being the mother of all disciples and gives early testimony to the rising devotion to Mary as the mother of God. The early second century gospel of James (not accepted as canonical) would show this continuing trend by declaring Mary sinless and show that Jesus’ brothers were from Joseph’s prior marriage (with Joseph being a widower). Mary is depicted in this later gospel as a sort of nun who dedicates herself to celibacy and marries Joseph only to protect her reputation. There are historical problems with accepting the gospel of James. My only point in referring to it is that Marian devotion arose very early within the Church, and we see the first signs of it in John’s gospel. Orthodox and Catholics have retained this devotion to Mary, believeing that it entered and developed so early in the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Protestants have tried to downplay Marian devotion based on the fact that so little is found in the canonical gospels to justify current practices of Catholics. This Marian devotion is a secondary question to the question of who Jesus is!

LULUA: Another interesting incident during the time of the crucifixion, is the renditions given as to the last words of Jesus.

LULUA: John 19:30 tells us that after Jesus’ having complained of being thirsty, and then given a dripple of a wine-vinegar mixture on a sponge, then his last words were ‘It is finished’ just before his last breath.

JCECIL3: The Greek word translated as “It is finished” and used in John’s gospel is also a secular Greek term that was stamped on sales receipts. Another meaning for the word is “The debt is paid in full”. The author of John’s gospel is making a theological point about our salvation, that on the cross, “it is finished” -- Jesus has paid the debt for our sins in full.

LULUA: Mark 15:34-41 tells us that Jesus exclaimed ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ (meaning ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’), and then a bit later, as appears in the scripture itself: ‘with a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last’.

JCECIL3: The Jesus portrayed in the gospel of Mark is referring to Psalm 22. This Psalm is a prophetic Psalm that perfectly depicts the crucifixion and resurrection. Again, John wants to paint a picture of this mysterious Jesus who dies in utter abandonment, and leave the reader with the question: “Who is this man who does what only God can do, and what did his life mean if it ends at the cross?”

LULUA: Matthew 27:46-54 also claims the same words and scene as which is described in Mark.

JCECIL3: Matthew uses Mark as a source, but more often quotes from the Old Testament to clarify how Jesus fulfills the prophets and the law. Matthew’s readers would have picked up the reference to Psalm 22 more easily than Mark’s.

LULUA: Luke 23:46-47 depicts something else entirely spoken by Jesus. ‘ “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” When he had said this, he breathed his last.’ Also, it is only in this rendition by Luke, that it is mentioned of what the centurion on guard said as: ‘Surely this was a righteous man.’

JCECIL3: The Jesus portrayed in the gospel of Luke is quoting Psalm 31:6, and the author is emphasizing Jesus’ absolute trust in the Father. Luke would have realized the more universal appeal of this different prayer to his more global audience. Yet, whether Jesus quoted Psalm 22, or Psalm 31, the character of the man portrayed is one who places his trust in the father until the end.

JCECIL3: Some Christians believe that all the quotations from the cross recorded in the gospels are historic truth. These Christians believe that we should view the various quotes as though the author is saying that these were among his last words, without worrying about which was the exact last word. Thus, Jesus recited both Psalm 22 and Psalm 31.

JCECIL3: Other Christians agree with Muslims that the authors took creative liberties with the facts. They believe that each author is making his own theological point, crafting the story to his audience. The consistency in the New Testament is not in historical minutia. Rather, it is the picture of the type of man Jesus was and the character he revealed in the way he died. The text remains inspired in the sense that God guided the author through the author’s creative imagination such that the author’s choice of words convey the truth God wished to communicate to humanity.

JCECIL3: I personally hold to this latter view, though the first view is not irrational, inconsistent, or impossible.

LULUA: After this session in which Jesus apparently exclaimed something, and then breathed his last breath before expiring, there are some varying renditions of what the reaction was of the guarding centurion at the site of the crucifixion.

LULUA: In Luke 23, it is recorded that the centurion remarks, about Jesus, at this time of his death and exasperation of his last breath with those last words that he is recorded to have said, that the centurion remarks his observation that ‘this was a righteous man.”

LULUA: In Matthew 27 and Mark 15 alike, it is recorded that the centurion remarks of his certainty or his final realization that this was, in fact, the Son of God.

JCECIL3: The problem here may be language. As Muslims are quick to point out, a son of God can be any righteous man in the Bible depending on the context. Yet, Christians use THE Son of God title specifically for Christ, which is also Biblically appropriate. Again context is everything. It very well may be that the centurion called Jesus a son of God in the sense of a righteous man at the time he made the statement. Luke may have been trying to convey what the centurion meant to an audience that did not fully understand Judaism. According to tradition, the centurion later became a Christian, but that is not found in the Bible. Another possibility is that each author is once again making his own theological point. Luke addresses a more global audience that he may have feared would have misunderstood “Son of God” to mean that Jesus was like Hercules – the son of a god. This is not Christian belief, and Luke may have been trying to protect the integrity of true Trinitarian theology by avoiding a term that would confuse his specific audience.

LULUA: The Book of John has no reference to any comment that the centurion might have said.

JCECIL3: So what?

LULUA: Again, in all, the varying versions and interpretations of what went on at this most important and crucial time of history, yet the differing views and memories of these very apostles of Jesus…the authors of the gospels.

LULUA: The word or name of the gospel itself, has gained such attribution to the name of the ‘gospel’ itself, that the word or name ‘gospel’ is equated with truth. In light of all the discrepancies and questionable renditions that are found within the four gospels, it is quite questionable as to how the word gospel has achieved such a high standard of reliability. It is even a popular quote, when someone is trying to prove his/her truth of the matter of which he or she is speaking, to mention it as ‘the gospel truth’. In accordance to what I have seen of the gospels, and noticed of the complete and drastic inconsistencies and discrepancies, I would not ever want to refer to anything that I say as ‘the gospel truth’. That in itself is an utter contradiction in itself.

JCECIL3: The gospel is truth in the sense of spiritual and theological truth based on one historic event: the death and resurrection of Christ. I readily admit to you that most of the rest of the gospel is interpretation of this event in light of remembrances of Jesus’ words and deeds, combined with Old Testament allusions and language typically associated with myth. When I say myth, I am not referring to falsehoods. I am referring to creative narratives meant to convey universal human truths. I believe two things are clear in all the New testament writings that is very difficult to argue against from a purely historic perspective: First, Jesus was crucified! Second, he had such a profound impact on those who knew him that they came to believe he was risen – to the point where they would give their lives to defend that position. I want to know in my own experience what Christ’s followers experienced that led them to hold so strongly to this position. Even if they took creative liberties with interpreting the events, something spectacular actually happened! This is the gospel truth!

....Lulua. ….and jcecil3

[Mardhiah]

Assalamualaikum Wr Wb and good day all,

I don't really understand christian that much.What I know comes from the Quraan and some other books, which I suppose is the basic of the religion.The topic here is about bible being corupted.Definately I can't prove that, but I can still show that there is no contradiction in the Quran.

This statement of yours,JCECIL3 quite disturb me," Regarding that we Christians deserve to die at the hands of Muslims, The Koran states in Sura 5:85, "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans." Then in Sura 9:5 it adds, "fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them. And lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. Then Surat Al-Maidah 5:51 tells Muslims: "O ye who believe, take not the Jews or Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you who turns to them is of them." It appears that Mohammed said one thing when he was politically weak, and another when he was politically strong. Suffice it to say, I find Mohammed's personality and historical circumstances shining through every page of this often-contradictory work!"

The verse 5:85 you gave is incorrect.That is not the one.Pls make sure that you did not get the numbers mixed up.
The right one is," So because of what they said, Allâh rewarded them Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise), they will abide therein forever. Such is the reward of good*doers".


For the verse 5:51, "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliyâ' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliyâ', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong*doers and unjust)",telling us that we muslims have our own consiquency due to our faith.Leaving matters to the non-muslims will not solve the situation, instead worsen it.This is not a message for those in Muhammad's s.a.w time only.It stated Jews and Christians rather than other religion because the three faiths(Islam,Jew and christian) were actually the same.However as time goes by they form three different religion and Islam is left alone with the others defending what choose to believe.

"they are but Auliya' to one another,then surely he is one of them".Meaning even if a few of them do not cause any harm, still they communicate with the others of their type and thus could get influenced.Untill what they do is against what our way.This is happenning these days!In such different extreme beliefs; accusing Mary as an adultery and saying that Jesus is the Son of God(or whatever you said him to be) and also God came as a human form.Since Jesus(pbuh) was still alive the Jews had already hated the Christians, and when the Christian had a strong foundation they would take revenge on the Jews.However when both are facing Islam, they will not find it hard to cooperate!

"Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong*doers and unjust)".Meaning those who let the Jews or Christian to become their leader will eventually be on e of them.Lets look at how the people who were once conquered by the Christians behave.They see English language as something with high status and leave behind their own culture.The way they thinking are different from their ancestors' thinking.I'm telling you it is much more easier to discuss Islam with a non-Muslim rather than with a Muslim.The feeling of ridicule,cynical,indifference is filling their attitude; they name them "intellectual" who ask for logical elaborations towards their religion.Actually their minds are influenced by foreigners.

Although taking the non-Muslims as leaders is not allowed, we are encouraged to mix and communicate with them.In the Quran stated,"O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allâh is that (believer) who has At-Taqwa [i.e. one of the Muttaqûn (pious - see V.2:2). Verily, Allâh is All-Knowing, All-Aware."(49:13)


"Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."(9:5).In the period of the four months the Arab pagans in a crowd around the Arab Land came to Muhammad s.a.w to say their witnesses toward Islam.Well actually after the Hudaibiyah agreement, and the invadsion Khaibar and Mecca, the pagans did not stand up anymore(mostly all were already Muslims).These four months gave way for the remainings to embrace Islam.Let them choose whether to be Muslims or continue to fight.Four Months! A war can be very well-prepared.When the period ended,kill them because it is already clear that they were ready for a war when they didn't accept Islam.In other words,fight them if they still gathering strength to fight against Islam.

"The monks have always prayed eight times a day, and Mohammed was probably copying some of their spirituality when he instituted prayer five times a day."
Muhammad s.a.w was not copying any other religion.You probably heard the story of Israk and Mikraj, but just telling a brief one here.......27 Rejab 621 AD (a year before hijrah), prophet Muhammad s.a.w departed from Mecca riding a Buraq (an animal from heaven which was extraordinary.When climbing a mountain, its fore legs became short and its hind legs long, and vise-versa while decending.The look was almost like a horse but walk with the speed of lightning, MASHA' ALLAH ALLAHU AKBAR) together with Gabriel to Medina.There he was told to pray 2 rakaat.Then they continued to Madyan, a place where Moses took shelter and perfomed 2 rakaat prayer.They departed again to Tursinah mountain and performed 2 rakaat prayer.He did the same thing when they reached Baitul Laham, the place of birth of Jesus, and Baitul Muqaddis (Palestine).The journey from Mecca to Baitul Muqaddis is called Israk which means walking during night time in Arabic."Glorified (and Exalted) be He (Allah) [above all that (evil) they associate with Him], Who took His slave (Muhammad s.a.w) for a journey by night from Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) to the farthest mosque (in Jerusalem), the neighbourhood whereof We have blessed, in order that We might show him (Muhammad s.a.w) of Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs, etc.). Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer."(17:01).On his way, he faced many obstacles and met different types of people; the good and the bad.Once he heard a call, instead of answering he asked Gabriel who they were.Gabriel told him that they were the jews if he were to answer their call certainly most of his follower would be jew.There was also a call from the christians and again he didn't reply them or most of his followers would be christians.Then there was a female voice which was the call from the world, if he answered then most of his followers would chase for the world than the hereafter.And there was a call puting forward to ask a question, Gabriel told Muhammad s.a.w that it was from Iblis.After that, he saw a very very old woman calling his name, he was told that this world is not more or less from her age.Muhammad s.a.w then led a prayer of the whole prophets and messengers when he reached Masjidil Aqsa(Baitul Muqaddis).Later on Mikraj took place and that is the ascending to the sky layer by layer.Before entering the first door he was welcomed by 70,000 angels, each with 70,000 soldiers.Inside he met Adam a.s together with his descendent.On the second layer he met Jesus a.s and John a.s, then Joseph a.s on the third, Enoch a.s on the fourth, Aaron a.s on the fifth, Mosses a.s on sixth and finally Abraham a.s.Later on he was brought up to the tenth layer of the sky, 'Arash',where no other creatures were allowed to enter.Here was where he met Allah s.w.t and therefore bow him down to the Great Lord.The order of performing salah was given here by Allah.No copying.No immitating.It was supposed to be 50 times at the beginning but Mosses a.s told Muhammad s.a.w to plead for the task to be lightened up, reosoning that the followers of Muhammad are weaker than his.Muhammad s.a.w agreed on the decission and ascend back to meet Allah.The order of salah was then lightened to 45.Yet Mosses thought it was still too heavy.Muhammad ascend back and the number of salah decreased to 40.The same thing repeated untill it became 5 times of salah.Mosses still thought it was too heavy but Muhammad refused this time.Then came a voice saying that the order commanded was enough.



BismAllah ArRahman ArRahim means In the name of Allah the Most Beneficient, the Most Merciful.You can find this phrase at the beginning of every chapter.

"Do not Imans debate some of the finer points of Qur’anic theology? If not, why are there Sunnis, Sufis, etc…?"
Sufis are those who dislike 'dunia' or this world.
The two main seperation in Islam is Sunni and Shia.After the death of Muhammad s.a.w, there was a little conflict between the Muhajirin(those from Mecca) and the Ansar(those from Medina).To the Muhajirin caliphs should be among Muhammad's tribe so it would be easier for the others to obey the ruler.Further more they were among the first to embrace Islam.The Ansar said that they had the right to be in the caliph positions because they had contribute alot to the spreading of Islam.While the arguement was heating, Abu Bakr r.a stood up and gave his point of view saying that the Ansar itself was divided into two, thus would let to further disagreement.He suggested Umar Ibnu Khattab or Abu Ubaidah bin Al-Jarrah, but Umar choose him to be the caliph because lately when Muhammad s.a.w was ill, he wanted Abu Bakr to replace his place to lead a prayer.2 years, 2 months and 10 days later, during Abu Bakr was on his death bed, he called upon the sahabah(friends) and appointed Umar to be the next caliph.

The following caliph was Osman bin Affan r.a, appointed by voting.Umar had left behind a will choosing 6 sahabah that were fit to replace him with his son,Abdullah,as the witness.Appointment was done at Aisyah's (the prophet's wife) house with Abdul Rahman bin Auf as the chairman.4 of the sahabah pulled back and so left Osman bin Affan and Ali bin Abi Thalib.Abdul rahman went around asking views from the people who would be a better replacement.At that time, the society were tired of Umar's ruling which was too harsh to them.They agreed on Osman because of his gentle attitude.

Then the fourth caliph went to Ali bin Abi Thalib,Muhammad's cousin as well as son in law.Their close relationship cause him to have a very high knowledge about Islam.At first he refused to take Osman's place due to the conflict going on among the Muslims.The egyptians mostly were anti-Osman wanted him to be the next leader.Those in Basrah wanted Talhah bin Ubaidullah and those in Kufah wanted Zubir bin Al-Awwam.However voters for Ali were much more greater in the end.Right after the appointment,Ali fired every gevernors of every states who were from Umayyah tribe (At the end of Osman's ruling, he was greatly influenced by his family tribe, mostly Marwan bin Hakam.Governors were fired and replaced with those from his tribe.The country's asset was used freely.Some tried to give advises to the cliph but it did not turn out well.Osman was later killed).This resulting to dissatisfaction among the people, especially the ummayyah tribe.They accused him of doing something without discussion.Some even took advantage on starting oppositions, such as Talhah bin Ubaidullah and Zubir bin Al-Awwam who were the main reason of Jamal(camel) war.....but this is another story.One more opposition was from Muawiyah bin Abu sufian who had a high position in Syam.He had arranged a large troops of soldiers with reason asking Ali to punish those who are responsible for Osman's death.Ali ignored his inquires but was willing to investigate the case if the people were to give adherence towards him.Muawiyah was not satisfied with the respond, thus accused Ali of involing in the murder of Osman.Actually the main reason of rebelling was because of the competition between the Umayyah tribe and the Hasyim tribe to govern Mecca in the past.Further more he was fired by Umar from being the governor of Syam.After the Jamal war, Ali travelled to Syam to make peace with Muawiyah.Jurir bin Abdullah was sent to meet Muawiyah but he did not seemed to be concerned of and the messenger was made to delay his return.So ALi and his troops moved forward and crossed Furat river.Both troops met at Saffin and one more messenger was sent, but still with no peace conclusion.A battle then took place-Ali with 50 supporters from Iraq while Muawiyah with only 40 supporters.When Muawiyah was about to loose, his strong man,Amru Ibnu-As, came out with an idea which Muawiyah agreed on.He ordered his army to carry their swords on their shoulders with Quran at the end of them, at the same time called out for stoppage and return to Quran.Seeing what happened, the army of Ali splitted into two; one wanted to cease attack and the other supposed that it was all a trick.Ali understood Muawiyah's motive could not do anything but to follow the majority which is to cease-attack.He sent a delegate for a further explaination from his opposition.From Muawiyah, what was done was just to have Ali finish this fight with a peace agreement.
The agreement is called Tahkin agreement and this is the main factor of seperation in Islam.Although at first it was a political seperation, it ended up with different types of belief.The Shia party consist of those who love Ali, they wanted him to be the caliph since the prophet's death.Anyone from his generation had the right to inherit the caliph's place.They recognise the post of caliph with the name Immamah(leader),and Ali was supposed to be the first because of being the son in law of prophet Muhammad s.a.w.Until today,you can see the shia people really exalt to their leaders.
The Sunni party was pro-Muawiyah with oponion that the post of caliph cannot be inheritted.A leader should be elected by the people with no discrimination.Disagreement in the study of Islam is not something which brings to damage of Iman.Although they felt sympathy towards the claim of Ali's position,they supported the one with power and interest in the performance of 'ibadah' and the study of Islam.This is the reason why it is called sunni, holding the sunnah that is the hadiths and practices of the prophet s.a.w.
Next group was the Khawarij party, angry at ALi,Muawiayh and Amru Ibnu-As.They had been trying to kill the three of them and start a new politic arrangement.Election of a caliph had to be free among the people without any discrimination. He should not be obeyed if he did not carry out responsibility the way Islam tolds him to do.A few years later, deviations were born and there were even more such as 'Jabariah','Muktazillah' and 'Kadhiyani(Ahmadiyah)'.

Mardhiah Mansor

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 08-12-01 AT 00:01&nbsp;AM (GMT)[p]Greetings Mardhiah!

A rather lengthy post you wrote. Nothing wrong with that, since I can be long-winded myself.

Trouble is that I've tried to read it three times, but I'm having a little trouble understanding your point on this one.

It's not you or your writing per se.

I just don't know enough about Islam. For example, you say "You probably heard the story of Israk and Mikraj...." I have absolutely no idea what you are speaking about. Never heard or read the words in my life before yeaterday....It seesm these are places or journeys of Mohammed from what you have written? I also do not know who Rejeb is. For that matter, there is almost not a single name in your post I recognize. As a westerner, much of this langauge is unfamiliar to me, and the constant use of s.a.w., p.b.h.u. and so forth also distracts us.

My point is only that you assume I know more about Islam than I do, which is probably why I may have gotten the verse number of the Qur'an incorrect as well.

One thing does seem clear from what you wrote. You seem much more comfortable and knowledgeable about the ambiguity and conflicts of history than other Muslims writing on this site so far. I find that refreshing. At least you admit there are some legitimate divisions within Islam.

So, the bottom line is that I need some help understanding what you wrote. Can you recommend a good book on Islam in English for me? Maybe a better translation of the Qur'an than the one I have? Maybe a good resource on the hadith? Also, can you summarize what you were trying to say above in a shorter paragraph with no historical references?


Peace!

jcecil3

[Mardhiah]

LAST EDITED ON 11-12-01 AT 04:18&nbsp;AM (GMT)[p]Greeting jcecil3,

I apologize for being so complicated to you.It is hard for me to recommend a good book since the Islamic books I read are written in Malay and Arabic.You may look for websites on Islam but I must say I do not rely much on internet.Try this one http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/. I have not read all but so far what I came across are right.Get either Yusuf Ali, Pickthal or Shakir translation for the Quran.Like I said on the other post there are also Tafseer published in volumes, and this kind elaborate a verse with much details.As for hadis, you have to know the person who collected them.Here is a list of names of the collecters arranged in order due to the acceptance of Hadis:

1) Bukhari and Muslim
2) Bukhari
3) Muslim
4) Abu Daud
5) Tirmidziy
6) An-Nasa'iy
7) Ibn Majah

Other than these, a hadis should be disputed.Hadis can be shahih(correct,strong and approved),hasan(good) and dhai'f(weak).As for Bukhari and Muslim, their collection of hadis are shahih, especially when both of them came together.Hadis are called hasan(good) because of certain problems; anyone from the chain of people where a hadis was passed down was lack at some point i.e forgetful, but since the hadis was from more than a person, which means many, it become hasan(good).And the colections from the four imam after Bukhari and Muslim are a mixture of shahih(correct,strong and approved) and hasan(good).Again, the hadis collected by each imam are published in volumes.I admit I do not read everything instead I use them as reference.Usually books on Islam will tell from which source they get for the informations.The source would be either from Quran or Hadis, and I will open up the tafseer or hadis in volumes if I feel doubtful.

You can go to the Muslim Convert Association and tell them that you want to know more about Islam.I am pretty sure they will be helpful.

For my previous post, I was saying there are divertion from Islam and yet those people still claim themselves as Muslim.Islam is Islam.There are no divisions.So if you want to learn, make sure you get from the sunni sect of people.The name sunni was given because they preserve the practices of Muhammad s.a.w(peace and blessing be upon him) and hold on straight to the Quran and Hadis.As I was telling, divertion was mainly division among the Muslim society to shia and sunni due to political factors.Of really wanting Ali to be a caliph since the death of prophet Muhammd s.a.w the shia people look at the post of imam(leader) as something else.Now you can see they really exalt to their imam.In Islam, Allah is the One we to worship and no other being has the right to be.There are divisions among themselves too.I do not know how much.Some of them pray only three times a day when the the Quran stated five times.If an outsider, other than their group, come to pray at their so-called mosque, they would wash the place where he sat.They are putting themselves higher than the others.By right, the decision of who is better is up to Allah.There are also divertions not because of political reasons such as Jabariah, Muktazillah and Ahmadiyah(these people believe in a prophet after Muhammad).

- s.a.w in English is p.b.u.h and it means peace and blessing be upon him
- a.s is alaihi salam(peace be upon him)
- r.a is radiallahu anhu(please Allah upon them).This is usually used for the sahabah.

Rejab is the name of a month in Islam.We have our own celender.These are the months arranged in order:
1) Muharram
2) Safar
3) Rabi'ulawal
4) Rabi'ulakhir
5) Jamadilawal
6) Jamadilakhir
7) Rejab
8) Sya'ban
9) Ramadhan(the fasting month, which is right now)
10) Syawal
11) Zulqaedah
12) Zulhijjah

Mardhiah Mansor

[vancouver]

There are no discrepancies between the four gospels.If four people witness a traffic accident for instance you will have four different versions yet all four will be telling the truth. Depending on their varying personalities one will pay more attention to a particar point than the others. One may give different details to the others. When the police combine the evidence of the four they have a much clearer picture of what took place than if it had been from one viewpoint. The same with those gospels, one would have given the details in accord with his personality while others would have put in different information. When we put them all together we have a much more rounded out picture of Jesus life and ministry. They all told the truth.

[Tita]

Well, jcecil3 has done a masterful job of explaining the so-called "inconsistencies" in the Bible, much better than I would have ever done. :-) I would like to illustrate his basic point with an illustration to which we can all relate.

I hate to bring up the Sep. 11th attacks here, but I think it gives us all a common frame of reference by which to make comparisons. We all know the basic facts about Sep. 11th--four planes are hijacked and three are crashed into buildings in an attempt to kill as many people as possible. But we have heard many, many stories since then about the events of that day.

Some of the stories have focused on the horrible spectacle of burning buildings and people jumping to their deaths. They go into great detail about flailing limbs as people fall 110 stories, or the skin burned right off of some survivors, or on the tragic happenstance of people who were only there that day because of a business meeting and died because of it.

A whole other group of stories has focused on the heroism involved . . . a priest killed while he is giving last rites, firemen running into buildings they knew were unstable, men who could have gotten out staying behind to get everyone out of their office.

Then there's all the stories about what happened on Flight 93, the flight where the passengers fought back. To hear these stories, you would barely even be aware that there was anything else attacked that day.

And all of this isn't even touching what happened at the Pentagon.

Yet, are there contradictions between all of these accounts? There are, if you want them to be there. If you try to read all these stories the way you would read a newspaper article, you would be very confused at first and struggle mightily to create a timeline that could accommodate so many different things happening in a short time. But if you take each set of stories and read them as they were meant to be read, you understand what happened that day without any problem.

To what jcecil wrote, I can only add that while I disagree with him on some smaller issues (such as Marian adoration), he has masterfully pointed out the beauty and unity of the Bible as a whole. Thanks. I may be forced to quote you at some point in the future! :-)

[vancouver]

Sorry this is long but you don't seem to have a fair understanding of where the bible is coming from according to your erroneous comments:-

..BIBLE

The Holy Scriptures, the inspired Word of Jehovah, acknowledged as the greatest book of all times because of its antiquity, its total circulation, the number of languages into which it has been translated, its surpassing greatness as a literary masterpiece, and its overwhelming importance to all mankind. Independent of all other books, it imitates no other. It stands on its own merits, giving credit to its unique Author. The Bible is also distinguished as having survived more violent controversy than any other book, hated as it is by many enemies.

Name. The English word "Bible" comes through the Latin from the Greek word bi·bli'a, meaning "little books." This, in turn, is derived from bi'blos, a word that describes the inner part of the papyrus plant out of which a primitive form of paper was made. The Phoenician city of Gebal, famous for its papyrus papermaking, was called by the Greeks "Byblos." (See Jos 13:5, ftn.) In time bi·bli'a came to describe various writings, scrolls, books, and eventually the collection of little books that make up the Bible. Jerome called this collection Bibliotheca Divina, the Divine Library.

Jesus and writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures referred to the collection of sacred writings as "the Scriptures," or "the holy Scriptures," "the holy writings." (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Lu 24:32; Joh 5:39; Ac 18:24; Ro 1:2; 15:4; 2Ti 3:15, 16) The collection is the written expression of a communicating God, the Word of God, and this is acknowledged in phrases such as "expression of Jehovah's mouth" (De 8:3), "sayings of Jehovah" (Jos 24:27), "commandments of Jehovah" (Ezr 7:11), "law of Jehovah," "reminder of Jehovah," "orders from Jehovah" (Ps 19:7, 8), "word of Jehovah" (Isa 38:4), 'utterance of Jehovah' (Mt 4:4), "Jehovah's word" (1Th 4:15). Repeatedly these writings are spoken of as "sacred pronouncements of God."-Ro 3:2; Ac 7:38; Heb 5:12; 1Pe 4:11.

Divisions. Sixty-six individual books from Genesis to Revelation make up the Bible canon. The choice of these particular books, and the rejection of many others, is evidence that the Divine Author not only inspired their writing but also carefully guarded their collection and preservation within the sacred catalog. (See APOCRYPHA; CANON.) Thirty-nine of the 66 books, making up three quarters of the Bible's contents, are known as the Hebrew Scriptures, all having been initially written in that language with the exception of a few small sections written in Aramaic. (Ezr 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Jer 10:11; Da 2:4b-7:28) By combining some of these books, the Jews had a total of only 22 or 24 books, yet these embraced the same material. It also appears to have been their custom to subdivide the Scriptures into three parts-'the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.' (Lu 24:44; see HEBREW SCRIPTURES.) The last quarter of the Bible is known as the Christian Greek Scriptures, so designated because the 27 books comprising this section were written in Greek. The writing, collecting, and arrangement of these books within the Bible's canon also demonstrate Jehovah's supervision from start to finish.-See CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES.

Subdividing the Bible into chapters and verses (KJ has 1,189 chapters and 31,102 verses) was not done by the original writers, but it was a very useful device added centuries later. The Masoretes divided the Hebrew Scriptures into verses; then in the 13th century of our Common Era chapter divisions were added. Finally, in 1555 Robert Estienne's edition of the Latin Vulgate was published as the first complete Bible with the present chapter and verse divisions.

The 66 Bible books all together form but a single work, a complete whole. As the chapter and verse marks are only convenient aids for Bible study and are not intended to detract from the unity of the whole, so also is the sectioning of the Bible, which is done according to the predominant language in which the manuscripts have come down to us. We, therefore, have both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, with "Christian" added to the latter to distinguish them from the Greek Septuagint, which is the Hebrew portion of the Scriptures translated into Greek.

"Old Testament" and "New Testament." Today it is a common practice to refer to the Scriptures written in Hebrew and Aramaic as the "Old Testament." This is based on the reading in 2 Corinthians 3:14 in the Latin Vulgate and the King James Version. However, the rendering "old testament" in this text is incorrect. The Greek word di·a·the'kes here means "covenant," as it does in the other 32 places where it occurs in the Greek text. Many modern translations correctly read "old covenant." (NE, RS, JB) The apostle Paul is not referring to the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures in their entirety. Neither does he mean that the inspired Christian writings constitute a "new testament (or, covenant)." The apostle is speaking of the old Law covenant, which was recorded by Moses in the Pentateuch and which makes up only a part of the pre-Christian Scriptures. For this reason he says in the next verse, "whenever Moses is read."

Hence, there is no valid basis for the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures to be called the "Old Testament" and for the Christian Greek Scriptures to be called the "New Testament." Jesus Christ himself referred to the collection of sacred writings as "the Scriptures." (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Joh 5:39) The apostle Paul referred to them as "the holy Scriptures," "the Scriptures," and "the holy writings."-Ro 1:2; 15:4; 2Ti 3:15.

Authorship. The accompanying table shows that about 40 human secretaries or scribes were used by the one Author to record the inspired Word of Jehovah. "All Scripture is inspired of God," and this includes the writings in the Christian Greek Scriptures along with "the rest of the Scriptures." (2Ti 3:16; 2Pe 3:15, 16) This expression "inspired of God" translated the Greek phrase the·o'pneu·stos, meaning "God-breathed." By 'breathing' on faithful men, God caused his spirit, or active force, to become operative upon them and directed what he wanted recorded, for, as it is written, "prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit."-2Pe 1:21; Joh 20:21, 22; see INSPIRATION.

This unseen holy spirit of God is his symbolic "finger." Therefore, when men saw Moses perform supernatural feats they exclaimed: "It is the finger of God!" (Ex 8:18, 19; compare with Jesus' words at Mt 12:22, 28; Lu 11:20.) In a similar display of divine power "God's finger" began the writing of the Bible by carving out the Ten Commandments on stone tablets. (Ex 31:18; De 9:10) It would, therefore, be a simple matter for Jehovah to use men as his scribes even though some were "unlettered and ordinary" in scholastic training (Ac 4:13), and regardless of whether the individual was by trade a shepherd, farmer, tentmaker, fisherman, tax collector, physician, priest, prophet, or king. Jehovah's active force put the thoughts into the writer's mind and, in certain instances, allowed him to express the divine thought in his own words, thus permitting personality and individual traits to show through the writing, yet at the same time maintaining a superb oneness in theme and in purpose throughout. In this way the resultant Bible, reflecting as it does the mind and will of Jehovah, exceeded in wealth and in scope the writings of mere men. The Almighty God saw to it that his written Word of truth was in language easily understood and easily translated into practically any tongue.

No other book took so long to complete as the Bible. In 1513 B.C.E. Moses began Bible writing. Other sacred writings were added to the inspired Scriptures until sometime after 443 B.C.E. when Nehemiah and Malachi completed their books. Then there was a gap in Bible writing for almost 500 years, until the apostle Matthew penned his historic account. Nearly 60 years later John, the last of the apostles, contributed his Gospel and three letters to complete the Bible's canon. So, all together, a period of some 1,610 years was involved in producing the Bible. All the cowriters were Hebrews and, hence, part of that people "entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God."-Ro 3:2.

The Bible is not an unrelated assortment or collection of heterogeneous fragments from Jewish and Christian literature. Rather, it is an organizational book, highly unified and interconnected in its various segments, which indeed reflect the systematic orderliness of the Creator-Author himself. God's dealings with Israel in giving them a comprehensive law code as well as regulations governing matters even down to small details of camp life-things that were later mirrored in the Davidic kingdom as well as in the congregational arrangement among first-century Christians-reflect and magnify this organizational aspect of the Bible.

Contents. In contents this Book of Books reveals the past, explains the present, and foretells the future. These are matters that only He who knows the end from the beginning could author. (Isa 46:10) Starting at the beginning by telling of the creation of heaven and earth, the Bible next gives a sweeping account of the events that prepared the earth for man's habitation. Then the truly scientific explanation of the origin of man is revealed-how life comes only from a Life-Giver-facts that only the Creator now in the role of Author could explain. (Ge 1:26-28; 2:7) With the account of why men die, the overriding theme that permeates the whole Bible was introduced. This theme, the vindication of Jehovah's sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his Kingdom under Christ, the promised Seed, was wrapped up in the first prophecy concerning 'the seed of the woman.' (Ge 3:15) More than 2,000 years passed before this promise of a "seed" was again mentioned, God telling Abraham: "By means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves." (Ge 22:18) Over 800 years later, renewed assurance was given to Abraham's descendant King David, and with the passing of more time Jehovah's prophets kept this flame of hope burning brightly. (2Sa 7:12, 16; Isa 9:6, 7) More than 1,000 years after David and 4,000 years after the original prophecy in Eden, the Promised Seed himself appeared, Jesus Christ, the legal heir to "the throne of David his father." (Lu 1:31-33; Ga 3:16) Bruised in death by the earthly seed of the "serpent," this "Son of the Most High" provided the ransom purchase price for the life rights lost to Adam's offspring, thus providing the only means whereby mankind can get everlasting life. He was then raised on high, there to await the appointed time to hurl "the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan," down to the earth, finally to be destroyed forever. Thus the magnificent theme announced in Genesis and developed and enlarged upon throughout the balance of the Bible is, in the closing chapters of Revelation, brought to a glorious climax as Jehovah's grand purpose by means of his Kingdom is made apparent.-Re 11:15; 12:1-12, 17; 19:11-16; 20:1-3, 7-10; 21:1-5; 22:3-5.

This Kingdom under Christ the Promised Seed is the means by which the vindication of Jehovah's name will be accomplished. Following through on this theme, the Bible magnifies God's personal name to a greater extent than any other book; the name occurs 6,973 times in the Hebrew Scripture portion of the New World Translation. That is in addition to the use of the shorter form "Jah" and the scores of instances where it combines to form other names like "Jehoshua," meaning "Jehovah Is Salvation." (See JEHOVAH [Importance of the Name].) We would not know the Creator's name, the great issue raised by the Edenic rebellion involving this name, or God's purpose to sanctify and vindicate that name before all creation if these things were not revealed in the Bible.

In this library of 66 little books the theme of the Kingdom and Jehovah's name are closely interwoven with information on many subjects. Its reference to fields of knowledge such as agriculture, architecture, astronomy, chemistry, commerce, engineering, ethnology, government, hygiene, music, poetry, philology, and tactical warfare is only incidental to development of the theme; not as a treatise. Nevertheless, it contains a veritable treasure-house of information for the archaeologists and paleographers.

As an accurate historical work and one that penetrates the past to great depths, the Bible far surpasses all other books. However, it is of much greater value in the field of prophecy, foretelling as it does the future that only the King of Eternity can reveal with accuracy. The march of world powers down through the centuries, even to the rise and ultimate demise of present-day institutions, was prophetically related in the Bible's long-range prophecies.

God's Word of truth in a very practical way sets men free from ignorance, superstitions, human philosophies, and senseless traditions of men. (Joh 8:32) "The word of God is alive and exerts power." (Heb 4:12) Without the Bible we would not know Jehovah, would not know the wonderful benefits resulting from Christ's ransom sacrifice, and would not understand the requirements that must be met in order to get everlasting life in or under God's righteous Kingdom.

The Bible is a most practical book in other ways too, for it gives sound counsel to Christians on how to live now, how to carry on their ministry, and how to survive this anti-God, pleasure-seeking system of things. Christians are told to "quit being fashioned after this system of things" by making their minds over from worldly thinking, and this they can do by having the same mental attitude of humility "that was also in Christ Jesus" and by stripping off the old personality and putting on the new one. (Ro 12:2; Php 2:5-8; Eph 4:23, 24; Col 3:5-10) This means displaying the fruitage of God's spirit, "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control"-subjects on which so much is written throughout the Bible.-Ga 5:22, 23; Col 3:12-14.

Authenticity. The veracity of the Bible has been assailed from many quarters, but none of these efforts has undermined or weakened its position in the least.

Bible history. Sir Isaac Newton once said: "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever." (Two Apologies, by R. Watson, London, 1820, p. 57) Its integrity to truth proves sound on any point that might be tested. Its history is accurate and can be relied upon. For example, what it says about the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians cannot be successfully contradicted (Jer 51:11, 12, 28; Da 5:28), neither can what it says about people like Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 27:20; Da 1:1); Egyptian King Shishak (1Ki 14:25; 2Ch 12:2); Assyrians Tiglath-pileser III and Sennacherib (2Ki 15:29; 16:7; 18:13); the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius (Lu 2:1; 3:1; Ac 18:2); Romans such as Pilate, Felix, and Festus (Ac 4:27; 23:26; 24:27); nor what it says about the temple of Artemis at Ephesus and the Areopagus at Athens (Ac 19:35; 17:19-34). What the Bible says about these or any other places, people, or events is historically accurate in every detail.-See ARCHAEOLOGY.

Races and languages. What the Bible says about races and languages of mankind is also true. All peoples, regardless of stature, culture, color, or language, are members of one human family. The threefold division of the human family into the Japhetic, Hamitic, and Semitic races, all descending from Adam through Noah, cannot be successfully disputed. (Ge 9:18, 19; Ac 17:26) Says Sir Henry Rawlinson: "If we were to be guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the Scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated."-The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records, by G. Rawlinson, 1862, p. 287; Ge 11:2-9.

Practicality. The Bible's teachings, examples, and doctrines are most practical for modern man. The righteous principles and high moral standards contained in this book set it apart as far above all other books. Not only does the Bible answer important questions but it also provides many practical suggestions which, if followed, would do much to raise the physical and mental health of earth's population. The Bible lays down principles of right and wrong that serve as a straightedge for just business dealings (Mt 7:12; Le 19:35, 36; Pr 20:10; 22:22, 23), industriousness (Eph 4:28; Col 3:23; 1Th 4:11, 12; 2Th 3:10-12), clean moral conduct (Ga 5:19-23; 1Th 4:3-8; Ex 20:14-17; Le 20:10-16), upbuilding associations (1Co 15:33; Heb 10:24, 25; Pr 5:3-11; 13:20), good family relationships (Eph 5:21-33; 6:1-4; Col 3:18-21; De 6:4-9; Pr 13:24). As the famous educator William Lyon Phelps once said: "I believe a knowledge of the Bible without a college course is more valuable than a college course without a Bible." (The New Dictionary of Thoughts, p. 46) Regarding the Bible, John Quincy Adams wrote: "It is of all books in the world, that which contributes most to make men good, wise, and happy."-Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son, 1849, p. 9.

Scientific accuracy. When it comes to scientific accuracy the Bible is not lacking. Whether describing the progressive order of earth's preparation for human habitation (Ge 1:1-31), speaking of the earth as being spherical and hung on "nothing" (Job 26:7; Isa 40:22), classifying the hare as a cud chewer (Le 11:6), or declaring, "the soul of the flesh is in the blood" (Le 17:11-14), the Bible is scientifically sound.

Cultures and customs. On points relating to cultures and customs, in no regard is the Bible found to be wrong. In political matters, the Bible always speaks of a ruler by the proper title that he bore at the time of the writing. For example, Herod Antipas and Lysanias are referred to as district rulers (tetrarchs), Herod Agrippa (II) as king, and Gallio as proconsul. (Lu 3:1; Ac 25:13; 18:12) Triumphal marches of victorious armies, together with their captives, were common during Roman times. (2Co 2:14) The hospitality shown to strangers, the Oriental way of life, the manner of purchasing property, legal procedures in making contracts, and the practice of circumcision among the Hebrews and other peoples are referred to in the Bible, and in all these details the Bible is accurate.-Ge 18:1-8; 23:7-18; 17:10-14; Jer 9:25, 26.

Candor. Bible writers displayed a candor that is not found among other ancient writers. From the very outset, Moses frankly reported his own sins as well as the sins and errors of his people, a policy followed by the other Hebrew writers. (Ex 14:11, 12; 32:1-6; Nu 14:1-9; 20:9-12; 27:12-14; De 4:21) The sins of great ones such as David and Solomon were not covered over but were reported. (2Sa 11:2-27; 1Ki 11:1-13) Jonah told of his own disobedience. (Jon 1:1-3; 4:1) The other prophets likewise displayed this same straightforward, candid quality. Writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures showed the same regard for truthful reporting as that displayed in the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul tells of his former sinful course in life; Mark's failure to stick to the missionary work; and also the apostle Peter's errors are related. (Ac 22:19, 20; 15:37-39; Ga 2:11-14) Such frank, open reporting builds confidence in the Bible's claim to honesty and truthfulness.

Integrity. Facts testify to the integrity of the Bible. The Bible narrative is inseparably interwoven with the history of the times. It gives straightforward, truthful instruction in the simplest manner. The guileless earnestness and fidelity of its writers, their burning zeal for truth, and their painstaking effort to attain accuracy in details are what we would expect in God's Word of truth.-Joh 17:17.

Prophecy. If there is a single point that alone proves the Bible to be the inspired Word of Jehovah it is the matter of prophecy. There are scores of long-range prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled. For a partial listing, see the book "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial," pp. 343-346.

Preservation. Today none of the original writings of the Holy Scriptures are known to exist. Jehovah, however, saw to it that copies were made to replace the aging originals. Also, from and after the Babylonian exile, with the growth of many Jewish communities outside Palestine, there was an increasing demand for more copies of the Scriptures. This demand was met by professional copyists who made extraordinary efforts to see that accuracy was attained in their handwritten manuscripts. Ezra was just such a man, "a skilled copyist in the law of Moses, which Jehovah the God of Israel had given."-Ezr 7:6.

For hundreds of years handwritten copies of the Scriptures continued to be made, during which period the Bible was expanded with the addition of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Translations or versions of these Holy Writings also appeared in other languages. Indeed, the Hebrew Scriptures are honored as the first book of note to be translated into another language. Extant today are thousands of these Bible manuscripts and versions.-See MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE; VERSIONS.

The first printed Bible, the Gutenberg Bible, came off the press in 1456. Today distribution of the Bible (the whole or in part) has reached over two billion copies in upwards of 1,800 languages. But this has not been accomplished without great opposition from many quarters. Indeed, the Bible has had more enemies than any other book; popes and councils even prohibited the reading of the Bible under penalty of excommunication. Thousands of Bible lovers lost their lives, and thousands of copies of the Bible were committed to the flames. One of the victims in the Bible's fight to live was translator William Tyndale, who once declared in a discussion with a cleric: "If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou doest."-Actes and Monuments, by John Foxe, London, 1563, p. 514.

All credit and thanksgiving for the Bible's survival in view of such violent opposition is due Jehovah, the Preserver of his Word. This fact gives added meaning to the apostle Peter's quotation from the prophet Isaiah: "All flesh is like grass, and all its glory is like a blossom of grass; the grass becomes withered, and the flower falls off, but the saying of Jehovah endures forever." (1Pe 1:24, 25; Isa 40:6-8) We, therefore, do well to pay "attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place" in this 20th century. (2Pe 1:19; Ps 119:105) The man whose "delight is in the law of Jehovah, and in his law he reads in an undertone day and night" and who puts in practice the things he reads is the one who prospers and is happy. (Ps 1:1, 2; Jos 1:8) To him Jehovah's laws, reminders, orders, commandments, and judicial decisions contained in the Bible are "sweeter than honey," and the wisdom derived therefrom is "more to be desired than gold, yes, than much refined gold," for it means his very life.-Ps 19:7-10; Pr 3:13, 16-18; see CANON.

TABLE OF BIBLE BOOKS IN ORDER COMPLETED

(The order in which the Bible books were written and where each stands in relation to the others is approximate; some dates [and places written] are uncertain. The symbol a. means "after"; b., "before"; and c., "circa" or "about.")

Hebrew Scriptures (B.C.E.)

Book Writer Date Time Place Written

Completed Covered

Genesis Moses 1513 "In the Wilderness
beginning"
to 1657

Exodus Moses 1512 1657-1512 Wilderness

Leviticus Moses 1512 1 month Wilderness
(1512)

Job Moses c. 1473 Over 140 Wilderness

years
between
1657 and
1473

Numbers Moses 1473 1512-1473 Wilderness /
Plains of Moab

Deuteronomy Moses 1473 2 months Plains of Moab
(1473)

Joshua Joshua c. 1450 1473- Canaan
c. 1450

Judges Samuel c. 1100 c. 1450- Israel
c. 1120

Ruth Samuel c. 1090 11 years Israel
of Judges'
rule

1 Samuel Samuel; c. 1078 c. 1180-1078 Israel
Gad;
Nathan

2 Samuel Gad; c. 1040 1077-c. 1040 Israel
Nathan

Song of Solomon c. 1020 Jerusalem
Solomon

Ecclesiastes Solomon b. 1000 Jerusalem

Jonah Jonah c. 844

Joel Joel c. 820 (?) Judah

Amos Amos c. 804 Judah

Hosea Hosea a. 745 b. 804- Samaria
a. 745 (District)

Isaiah Isaiah a. 732 c. 778- Jerusalem
a. 732

Micah Micah b. 717 c. 777-717 Judah

Proverbs Solomon; c. 717 Jerusalem
Agur;
Lemuel

Zephaniah Zephaniah b. 648 Judah

Nahum Nahum b. 632 Judah

Habakkuk Habakkuk c. 628 (?) Judah

Lamentations Jeremiah 607 Nr. Jerusalem

Obadiah Obadiah c. 607

Ezekiel Ezekiel c. 591 613-c. 591 Babylon

1 and 2 Jeremiah 580 c. 1040-580 Judah/Egypt
Kings

Jeremiah Jeremiah 580 647-580 Judah/Egypt

Daniel Daniel c. 536 618-c. 536 Babylon

Haggai Haggai 520 112 days Jerusalem
(520)

Zechariah Zechariah 518 520-518 Jerusalem

Esther Mordecai c. 475 493-c. 475 Shushan, Elam

1 and 2 Ezra c. 460 After Jerusalem (?)
Chronicles 1 Chronicles
9:44, 1077-537

Ezra Ezra c. 460 537-c. 467 Jerusalem

Psalms David c. 460
and others

Nehemiah Nehemiah a. 443 456-a. 443 Jerusalem

Malachi Malachi a. 443 Jerusalem

[Chart on page 310]

Christian Greek Scriptures (C.E.)

Book Writer Date Time Place Written

Completed Covered

Matthew Matthew c. 41 2 B.C.E.- Palestine
33 C.E.

1 Thessalonians
Paul c. 50 Corinth

2 Thessalonians
Paul c. 51 Corinth

Galatians Paul c. 50-52 Corinth or
Syr. Antioch

1 Corinthians
Paul c. 55 Ephesus

2 Corinthians
Paul c. 55 Macedonia

Romans Paul c. 56 Corinth

Luke Luke c. 56-58 3 B.C.E.- Caesarea
33 C.E.

Ephesians Paul c. 60-61 Rome

Colossians Paul c. 60-61 Rome

Philemon Paul c. 60-61 Rome

Philippians Paul c. 60-61 Rome

Hebrews Paul c. 61 Rome

Acts Luke c. 61 33-c. Rome
61 C.E.

James James b. 62 Jerusalem

Mark Mark c. 60-65 29-33 C.E. Rome

1 Timothy Paul c. 61-64 Macedonia

Titus Paul c. 61-64 Macedonia (?)

1 Peter Peter c. 62-64 Babylon

2 Peter Peter c. 64 Babylon (?)

2 Timothy Paul c. 65 Rome

Jude Jude c. 65 Palestine (?)

Revelation John c. 96 Patmos

John John c. 98 After Ephesus, or near
prologue,
29-33 C.E.

1 John John c. 98 Ephesus, or near

2 John John c. 98 Ephesus, or near

3 John John c. 98 Ephesus, or near

[jcecil3]

Greetings Vancouver,

I really like the time line. I'm not sure I agree with the exact dates on the whole thing, but nice way to get a handle on the big picture, and I agree with your big picture -- so let's not dispute too much minutia.

Can you tell me why you date gospel of john after the Book of Revelation?

Just curious......

Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3

[vancouver]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-03-02 AT 12:25&nbsp;PM (GMT)]Hi jcecil3

A difficult one that with only a couple of years or so separating the books. He was on the Isle of Patmos according to his own words when he received and wrote Revelation. It is believed that he wrote his other books immediately after he was released from exile.

Revelation to John ***

Writer, and When and Where Written.

The apostle John names himself as the writer of the book and designates the place of writing as the island of Patmos, where John was in exile at the time for being a preacher of God's Word and a witness of Jesus Christ. (Re 1:1, 9) The time of writing was possibly about 96 C.E.

John, Good News According to ***

When and Where Written.

It is generally thought that John had been released from exile on the island of Patmos and was in or near Ephesus, about 100 km (60 mi) from Patmos, at the time he wrote his Gospel, about 98 C.E. Roman Emperor Nerva (96-98 C.E.) recalled many who had been exiled at the close of the reign of his predecessor Domitian. John may have been among these. In the Revelation that John received on Patmos, Ephesus was one of the congregations to which he was commanded to write.

John had reached a very old age, being probably about 90 or 100 when he wrote his Gospel. He was undoubtedly familiar with the other three accounts of Jesus' earthly life and ministry, also the Acts of Apostles and the letters written by Paul, Peter, James, and Jude. He had had opportunity to see Christian doctrine fully revealed and had seen the effects of its preaching to all nations. He also had seen the beginning of "the man of lawlessness." (2Th 2:3) He had witnessed many of Jesus' prophecies already fulfilled, notably the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of that Jewish system of things.

John, The Letters of ***

HIGHLIGHTS OF FIRST JOHN

A vigorous treatise designed to safeguard Christians against apostate influences

Written by the apostle John about 98 C.E., after Revelation and not long before John's death

John, The Letters of ***

HIGHLIGHTS OF SECOND JOHN

A letter addressed to "the chosen lady"-perhaps an individual or possibly a congregation

Written by the apostle John about 98 C.E.

John, The Letters of ***

HIGHLIGHTS OF THIRD JOHN

An inspired letter to Gaius that can benefit all Christians

Written by the apostle John around 98 C.E., about the same time as his other two letters

Regards

vancouver

[jcecil3]

Greetings!

Interesting perspective Vancouver.

So, if you believe that the author of John's gospel is truly the same John who was member of the 12, how do you reconcile all his theology that seems to indicate Christ is divine with your JW theology?

Let me know if you need some examples.....I've posted them elsewhere on the IWC.

Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3

[vancouver]

I always thought that divine applies to angels as well as God.

John 1:1-51 ***

1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light is shining in the darkness, but the darkness has not overpowered it.

6 There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God: his name was John. 7 This [man] came for a witness, in order to bear witness about the light, that people of all sorts might believe through him. 8 He was not that light, but he was meant to bear witness about that light.

9 The true light that gives light to every sort of man was about to come into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own home, but his own people did not take him in. 12 However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become God's children, because they were exercising faith in his name; 13 and they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man's will, but from God.

14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, yes, he actually cried out-this was the one who said [it]-saying: "The one coming behind me has advanced in front of me, because he existed before me.") 16 For we all received from out of his fullness, even undeserved kindness upon undeserved kindness. 17 Because the Law was given through Moses, the undeserved kindness and the truth came to be through Jesus Christ. 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

19 Now this is the witness of John when the Jews sent forth priests and Levites from Jerusalem to him to ask him: "Who are you?" 20 And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed: "I am not the Christ." 21 And they asked him: "What, then? Are you E·li'jah?" And he said: "I am not." "Are you The Prophet?" And he answered: "No!" 22 Therefore they said to him: "Who are you? that we may give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" 23 He said: "I am a voice of someone crying out in the wilderness, 'MAKE the way of Jehovah straight,' just as Isaiah the prophet said." 24 Now those sent forth were from the Pharisees. 25 So they questioned him and said to him: "Why, then, do you baptize if you yourself are not the Christ or E·li'jah or The Prophet?" 26 John answered them, saying: "I baptize in water. In the midst of YOU one is standing whom YOU do not know, 27 the one coming behind me, but the lace of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." 28 These things took place in Beth'a·ny across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

29 The next day he beheld Jesus coming toward him, and he said: "See, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one about whom I said, Behind me there comes a man who has advanced in front of me, because he existed before me. 31 Even I did not know him, but the reason why I came baptizing in water was that he might be made manifest to Israel." 32 John also bore witness, saying: "I viewed the spirit coming down as a dove out of heaven, and it remained upon him. 33 Even I did not know him, but the very One who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'Whoever it is upon whom you see the spirit coming down and remaining, this is the one that baptizes in holy spirit.' 34 And I have seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God."

35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and as he looked at Jesus walking he said: "See, the Lamb of God!" 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 Then Jesus turned and, getting a view of them following, he said to them: "What are YOU looking for?" They said to him: "Rabbi, (which means, when translated, Teacher,) where are you staying?" 39 He said to them: "Come, and YOU will see." Accordingly they went and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day; it was about the tenth hour. 40 Andrew the brother of Simon Peter was one of the two that heard what John said and followed [Jesus]. 41 First this one found his own brother, Simon, and said to him: "We have found the Mes·si'ah" (which means, when translated, Christ). 42 He led him to Jesus. When Jesus looked upon him he said: "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Ce'phas" (which is translated Peter).

43 The next day he desired to depart for Gal'i·lee. So Jesus found Philip and said to him: "Be my follower." 44 Now Philip was from Beth·sa'i·da, from the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Na·than'a·el and said to him: "We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote, Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Naz'a·reth." 46 But Na·than'a·el said to him: "Can anything good come out of Naz'a·reth?" Philip said to him: "Come and see." 47 Jesus saw Na·than'a·el coming toward him and said about him: "See, an Israelite for a certainty, in whom there is no deceit." 48 Na·than'a·el said to him: "How does it come that you know me?" Jesus in answer said to him: "Before Philip called you, while you were under the fig tree, I saw you." 49 Na·than'a·el answered him: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel." 50 Jesus in answer said to him: "Because I told you I saw you underneath the fig tree do you believe? You will see things greater than these." 51 He further said to him: "Most truly I say to YOU men, YOU will see heaven opened up and the angels of God ascending and descending to the Son of man."

As you probably know in Greek there is no prefix for a. When a particular person or object is intended 'the' has to be inserted as with 'the God'. When 'the' is not there 'a' has to be inserted. That is why the word is a god and not the God. Jesus was the first creation by God and then everything else came into existence through Jesus as God's chief agent. Two separate persons. God who always existed and Jesus who was created.

[jcecil3]

What does Thomas mean when he says "My Lord and My God" to the resurrected christ? And what does Christ mean when he says "Before Abraham was, I AM" using "Ego eimi" in the way that Isaiah uses it as a name for YHWH in the Septuagint?

[vancouver]

Hi jcecil3

I had a little more time this evening to put more information together including an explanation about what Thomas said.

Jesus Christ ***

Not a co-Creator. The Son's share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.-Mt 19:4-6

Wisdom is manifest only by being expressed in some way. God's own wisdom was expressed in creation (Pr 3:19, 20) but through his Son. (Compare 1Co 8:6.) So, too, God's wise purpose involving mankind is made manifest through, and summed up in, his Son, Jesus Christ. Thus, the apostle could say that Christ represents "the power of God and the wisdom of God" and that Christ Jesus "has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom."-1Co 1:24, 30; compare 1Co 2:7, 8; Pr 8:1, 10, 18-21.

How he is the "only-begotten Son." Jesus' being called the "only-begotten Son" (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) does not mean that the other spirit creatures produced were not God's sons, for they are called sons as well. (Ge 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7) However, by virtue of his being the sole direct creation of his Father, the firstborn Son was unique, different from all others of God's sons, all of whom were created or begotten by Jehovah through that firstborn Son. So "the Word" was Jehovah's "only-begotten Son" in a particular sense, even as Isaac was Abraham's "only-begotten son" in a particular sense (his father already having another son but not by his wife Sarah).-Heb 11:17; Ge 16:15.

Why called "the Word." The name (or, perhaps, title) "the Word" (Joh 1:1) apparently identifies the function that God's firstborn Son performed after other intelligent creatures were formed. A similar expression is found at Exodus 4:16, where Jehovah says to Moses concerning his brother Aaron: "And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him." As spokesman for God's chief representative on earth, Aaron served as "a mouth" for Moses. Likewise with the Word, or Logos, who became Jesus Christ. Jehovah evidently used his Son to convey information and instructions to others of his family of spirit sons, even as he used that Son to deliver his message to humans on earth. Showing that he was God's Word, or Spokesman, Jesus said to his Jewish listeners: "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality."-Joh 7:16, 17; compare Joh 12:50; 18:37.

Why do some Bible translations refer to Jesus as "God," while others say he was "a god"?

Some translations render John 1:1 as saying: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Literally the Greek text reads: "In beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word." The translator must supply capitals as needed in the language into which he translates the text. It is clearly proper to capitalize "God" in translating the phrase "the god," since this must identify the Almighty God with whom the Word was. But the capitalizing of the word "god" in the second case does not have the same justification.

The New World Translation renders this text: "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." True, there is no indefinite article (corresponding to "a" or "an") in the original Greek text. But this does not mean one should not be used in translation, for Koine, or common Greek, had no indefinite article. Hence, throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures, translators are obliged to use the indefinite article or not according to their understanding of the meaning of the text. All English translations of those Scriptures do contain the indefinite article hundreds of times; yet most do not use it at John 1:1. Nevertheless, its use in the rendering of this text has sound basis.

First, it should be noted that the text itself shows that the Word was "with God," hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty God. (Note also <G<Þ>G>Joh 1 <G<Ü>G>vs 2, which would be unnecessary if <G<Þ>G>Joh 1 <G<Ü>G>vs 1 actually showed the Word to be God.) Additionally, the word for "god" (Gr., the·os') in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly without the definite article "the" (Gr., ho). Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: "[the·os'] and [ho the·os'] ('god, divine' and 'the God') were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was 'God' ([ho the·os']; cf. <G<Þ>G>Joh <G<Ü>G>17:3); 'the Son' was subordinate to him (cf. <G<Þ>G>Joh <G<Ü>G>14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities."-John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110.

After giving as a translation of John 1:1c "and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word," Haenchen goes on to state: "In this instance, the verb 'was' ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os'] is not the same thing as [ho the·os'] ('divine' is not the same thing as 'God')." (pp. 110, 111) Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article "the," preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that "the logos has the nature of theos." He further stated: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite." (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: "the Word was divine."-AT; Sd; compare Mo; see NW appendix, p. 1579.

The Hebrew Scriptures are consistently clear in showing that there is but one Almighty God, the Creator of all things and the Most High, whose name is Jehovah. (Ge 17:1; Isa 45:18; Ps 83:18) For that reason Moses could say to the nation of Israel: "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force." (De 6:4, 5) The Christian Greek Scriptures do not contradict this teaching that had been accepted and believed by God's servants for thousands of years, but instead they support it. (Mr 12:29; Ro 3:29, 30; 1Co 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 1Ti 2:5) Jesus Christ himself said, "The Father is greater than I am" and referred to the Father as his God, "the only true God." (Joh 14:28; 17:3; 20:17; Mr 15:34; Re 1:1; 3:12) On numerous occasions Jesus expressed his inferiority and subordination to his Father. (Mt 4:9, 10; 20:23; Lu 22:41, 42; Joh 5:19; 8:42; 13:16) Even after Jesus' ascension into heaven his apostles continued to present the same picture.-1Co 11:3; 15:20, 24-28; 1Pe 1:3; 1Jo 2:1; 4:9, 10.

These facts give solid support to a translation such as "the Word was a god" at John 1:1. The Word's preeminent position among God's creatures as the Firstborn, the one through whom God created all things, and as God's Spokesman, gives real basis for his being called "a god" or mighty one. The Messianic prophecy at Isaiah 9:6 foretold that he would be called "Mighty God," though not the Almighty God, and that he would be the "Eternal Father" of all those privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his own Father, "Jehovah of armies," would accomplish this. (Isa 9:7) Certainly if God's Adversary, Satan the Devil, is called a "god" (2Co 4:4) because of his dominance over men and demons (1Jo 5:19; Lu 11:14-18), then with far greater reason and propriety is God's firstborn Son called "a god," "the only-begotten god" as the most reliable manuscripts of John 1:18 call him.

When charged by opposers with 'making himself a god,' Jesus' reply was: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said: "You are gods"'? If he called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am God's Son?" (Joh 10:31-37) Jesus there quoted from Psalm 82, in which human judges, whom God condemned for not executing justice, were called "gods." (Ps 82:1, 2, 6, 7) Thus, Jesus showed the unreasonableness of charging him with blasphemy for stating that he was, not God, but God's Son.

This charge of blasphemy arose as a result of Jesus' having said: "I and the Father are one." (Joh 10:30) That this did not mean that Jesus claimed to be the Father or to be God is evident from his reply, already partly considered. The oneness to which Jesus referred must be understood in harmony with the context of his statement. He was speaking of his works and his care of the "sheep" who would follow him. His works, as well as his words, demonstrated that there was unity, not disunity and disharmony, between him and his Father, a point his reply went on to emphasize. (Joh 10:25, 26, 37, 38; compare Joh 4:34; 5:30; 6:38-40; 8:16-18.) As regards his "sheep," he and his Father were likewise at unity in their protecting such sheeplike ones and leading them to everlasting life. (Joh 10:27-29; compare Eze 34:23, 24.) Jesus' prayer on behalf of the unity of all his disciples, including future ones, shows that the oneness, or union, between Jesus and his Father was not as to identity of person but as to purpose and action. In this way Jesus' disciples could "all be one," just as he and his Father are one.-Joh 17:20-23.

In harmony with this, Jesus, responding to a question by Thomas, said: "If you men had known me, you would have known my Father also; from this moment on you know him and have seen him," and, in answer to a question from Philip, Jesus added: "He that has seen me has seen the Father also." (Joh 14:5-9) Again, Jesus' following explanation shows that this was so because he faithfully represented his Father, spoke the Father's words, and did the Father's works. (Joh 14:10, 11; compare Joh 12:28, 44-49.) It was on this same occasion, the night of his death, that Jesus said to these very disciples: "The Father is greater than I am."-Joh 14:28.

The disciples 'seeing' the Father in Jesus can also be understood in the light of other Scriptural examples. Jacob, for instance, said to Esau: "I have seen your face as though seeing God's face in that you received me with pleasure." He said this because Esau's reaction had been in harmony with Jacob's prayer to God. (Ge 33:9-11; 32:9-12) After God's interrogation of Job out of a windstorm had clarified that man's understanding, Job said: "In hearsay I have heard about you, but now my own eye does see you." (Job 38:1; 42:5; see also Jg 13:21, 22.) The 'eyes of his heart' had been enlightened. (Compare Eph 1:18.) That Jesus' statement about seeing the Father was meant to be understood figuratively and not literally is evident from his own statement at John 6:45 as well as from the fact that John, long after Jesus' death, wrote: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."-Joh 1:18; 1Jo 4:12.

What did Thomas mean when he said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God"?

On the occasion of Jesus' appearance to Thomas and the other apostles, which had removed Thomas' doubts of Jesus' resurrection, the now-convinced Thomas exclaimed to Jesus: "My Lord and my God! [literally, "The Lord of me and the God (ho The·os') of me!"]." (Joh 20:24-29) Some scholars have viewed this expression as an exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus but actually directed to God, his Father. However, others claim the original Greek requires that the words be viewed as being directed to Jesus. Even if this is so, the expression "My Lord and my God" would still have to harmonize with the rest of the inspired Scriptures. Since the record shows that Jesus had previously sent his disciples the message, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God," there is no reason for believing that Thomas thought Jesus was the Almighty God. (Joh 20:17) John himself, after recounting Thomas' encounter with the resurrected Jesus, says of this and similar accounts: "But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name."-Joh 20:30, 31.

So, Thomas may have addressed Jesus as "my God" in the sense of Jesus' being "a god" though not the Almighty God, not "the only true God," to whom Thomas had often heard Jesus pray. (Joh 17:1-3) Or he may have addressed Jesus as "my God" in a way similar to expressions made by his forefathers, recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, with which Thomas was familiar. On various occasions when individuals were visited or addressed by an angelic messenger of Jehovah, the individuals, or at times the Bible writer setting out the account, responded to or spoke of that angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah God. (Compare Ge 16:7-11, 13; 18:1-5, 22-33; 32:24-30; Jg 6:11-15; 13:20-22.) This was because the angelic messenger was acting for Jehovah as his representative, speaking in his name, perhaps using the first person singular pronoun, and even saying, "I am the true God." (Ge 31:11-13; Jg 2:1-5) Thomas may therefore have spoken to Jesus as "my God" in this sense, acknowledging or confessing Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God. Whatever the case, it is certain that Thomas' words do not contradict the clear statement he himself had heard Jesus make, namely, "The Father is greater than I am."-Joh 14:28.

His Birth on Earth. Prior to Jesus' birth on earth, angels had appeared on this planet in human form, apparently materializing suitable bodies for the occasion, then dematerializing them after completing such assignments. (Ge 19:1-3; Jg 6:20-22; 13:15-20) They thus remained spirit creatures, merely employing a physical body temporarily. This, however, was not the case with the coming of God's Son to earth to become the man Jesus. John 1:14 says that "the Word became flesh and resided among us." For that reason he could call himself "the Son of man." (Joh 1:51; 3:14, 15) Some draw attention to the expression "resided [literally, "tented"] among us" and claim this shows Jesus was, not a true human, but an incarnation. However, the apostle Peter uses a similar expression about himself, and Peter was obviously not an incarnation.-2Pe 1:13, 14.

The inspired Record says: "But the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way. During the time his mother Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before they were united." (Mt 1:18) Prior to this, Jehovah's angelic messenger had informed the virgin girl Mary that she would 'conceive in her womb' as the result of God's holy spirit coming upon her and His power overshadowing her. (Lu 1:30, 31, 34, 35) Since actual conception took place, it appears that Jehovah God caused an ovum, or egg cell, in Mary's womb to become fertile, accomplishing this by the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm to earth. (Ga 4:4) Only in this way could the child eventually born have retained identity as the same person who had resided in heaven as the Word, and only in this way could he have been an actual son of Mary and hence a genuine descendant of her forefathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and King David and legitimate heir of the divine promises made to them. (Ge 22:15-18; 26:24; 28:10-14; 49:10; 2Sa 7:8, 11-16; Lu 3:23-34; see GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST.) It is likely, therefore, that the child born resembled its Jewish mother in certain physical characteristics.

Mary was a descendant of the sinner Adam, hence herself imperfect and sinful. The question therefore is raised as to how Jesus, Mary's "firstborn" (Lu 2:7), could be perfect and free from sin in his physical organism. While modern geneticists have learned much about laws of heredity and about dominant and recessive characteristics, they have had no experience in learning the results of uniting perfection with imperfection, as was the case with Jesus' conception. From the results revealed in the Bible, it would appear that the perfect male life-force (causing the conception) canceled out any imperfection existent in Mary's ovum, thereby producing a genetic pattern (and embryonic development) that was perfect from its start. Whatever the case, the operation of God's holy spirit at the time guaranteed the success of God's purpose. As the angel Gabriel explained to Mary, "power of the Most High" overshadowed her so that what was born was holy, God's Son. God's holy spirit formed, as it were, a protective wall so that no imperfection or hurtful force could damage, or blemish, the developing embryo, from conception on.-Lu 1:35.

Since it was God's holy spirit that made the birth possible, Jesus owed his human life to his heavenly Father, not to any man, such as his adoptive father Joseph. (Mt 2:13-15; Lu 3:23) As Hebrews 10:5 states, Jehovah God 'prepared a body for him,' and Jesus, from conception onward, was truly "undefiled, separated from the sinners."-Heb 7:26; compare Joh 8:46; 1Pe 2:21, 22.

The Messianic prophecy at Isaiah 52:14, which speaks of "the disfigurement as respects his appearance," therefore must apply to Jesus the Messiah only in a figurative way. (Compare <G<Þ>G>Isa 52 <G<Ü>G>vs 7 of the same chapter.) Though he was perfect in physical form, the message of truth and righteousness that Jesus Christ boldly proclaimed made him repulsive in the eyes of hypocritical opposers, who claimed to see in him an agent of Beelzebub, a man possessed of a demon, a blasphemous fraud. (Mt 12:24; 27:39-43; Joh 8:48; 15:17-25) In a similar way the message proclaimed by Jesus' disciples later caused them to be "a sweet odor" of life to receptive persons, but an odor of death to those rejecting their message.-2Co 2:14-16.

All the best

vancouver

[jcecil3]

It is incredible how close to Trinitarian thought your article comes, without going that extra step.

Let me ask this: Since you indicate that Revelations was written before John's gospel by John, himself, how do you interpret Rev 1:17, where Christ clearly refers to himself as "The First and the Last" apparently alluding to both Isaiah, where YHWH uses "The First and the Last" as his name in 41:4, and Rev 1:8, where "Theos" refers to Himself as "The Alpha and the Omega", which had the same connotative meaning as "the first and the last", and is the Septuagint translation of Is 41:4? This seems to be a clear indication that the author believes Jesus is not only a god, but The God, especially in the context of the other verses I sited.

Let me also ask this, the Bible affirms in places too numerous for me to count that there is only one God. So, if Christ is "a god" along-side the Father, aren't you really preaching a vieled polytheism?

Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3

[vancouver]

Hi jcecil3


"The First and the Last"

Nevertheless, our awe need not give way to morbid fear. Jesus reassured John, as the apostle next relates. "And he laid his right hand upon me and said: 'Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one.'" (Revelation 1:17b, 18a) In Isaiah 44:6, Jehovah rightly describes his own position as the one and only almighty God, saying: "I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God." When Jesus presents himself by the title "the First and the Last," he is not claiming equality with Jehovah, the Grand Creator. He is using a title properly bestowed on him by God. In Isaiah, Jehovah was making a statement about His unique position as the true God. He is God eternal, and besides him there is indeed no God. (1 Timothy 1:17) In Revelation, Jesus is talking about his bestowed title, calling attention to his unique resurrection.

Jesus was indeed "the First" human to be resurrected to immortal spirit life. (Colossians 1:18) Moreover, he is "the Last" to be so resurrected by Jehovah personally. Thus, he becomes "the living one . . . living forever and ever." He enjoys immortality. In this, he is like his immortal Father, who is called "the living God." (Revelation 7:2; Psalm 42:2) For all others of humanity, Jesus himself is "the resurrection and the life." (John 11:25) In harmony with this, he says to John: "I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." (Revelation 1:18b) Jehovah has given him the authority to resurrect the dead. That is why Jesus can say that he has the keys to unlock the gates for those bound by death and Hades (gravedom).-Compare Matthew 16:18.


Regards

vancouver

[JBJ]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 26-03-02 AT 08:21&nbsp;PM (GMT)]Hi,

I think you're mistaken on translation. You said

When 'the' is not there 'a' has to be inserted.

I don't know Greek, but I believe the absence of "a" (that is, an indefinite article) can signal either an "invisible" indefinite article, like you said, or an "invisible" definite article (that is, "the," "ho"). I think you can see examples of this within John 1 where what all translations render as "God" are sometimes taken from just "theos" without "ho." I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure about it.

JBJ

[vancouver]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 26-03-02 AT 09:34&nbsp;PM (GMT)]If 'ho' isn't there then God is not meant.There is no word in Greek for 'a'. To differentiate between the Almighty God and just a god then there is the need to insert 'a' when there is no word for the 'ho'in front of god. So the translation is correct. If it said that the Word was God then it would lead us to believe that Jesus was the Almighty which he could not be. Remember Jesus was an embryo and fetus for nine months then a vulnerable little baby and then a child for a number of years. Who was running the universe? When translating from one language into another the translaters have to be consistent. No good leaving 'a'out sometimes and putting it in at other times.

Although after reading your post more carefully I have reached the conclusion that you agree with me in rendering John 1:1 as in part:-"the word was a god".

Now in context as post 13(part)

John 1:1-3
1 In beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

You will find that what you said agrees with post 13.

[jcecil3]

Greetings!

I will chime here since I know a little Greek. While I have agreed with JBJ on other threads that there absolutely no way to translate John 1:1 as "the Word was OF God", I agree with Vancouver that "the Word was A god" is a possible translation. I do not think it is the intent of the author to say the Word was A god (which would be polythiestic), but since vancouver's argument is possible, I have been appealing to other verses.

Vancouver: I think your explanation of the use of "the First and the Last" in Rev 1:17 is strained almost beyond reason. I may have missed it, but I haven't really seen an answer yet to the use of "ego emei" (I AM) by Christ in John 8:58 either, which is God's name in the Septuagint version of Isaiah in numerous places. Even the Muslims see the Johanine writings as making clear references to Christ's divinity, though they believe the Johanine author is corrupting the actual words of Jesus...

Peace and blessings
jcecil3

[vancouver]

Hi jcecil3

Sorry this reply is long but there is a lot of information about the various gods.

God ***
At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ´El Gib·bohr', "Mighty God" (not ´El Shad·dai' [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1).

The plural form, ´e·lim', is used when referring to other gods, such as at Exodus 15:11 ("gods"). It is also used as the plural of majesty and excellence, as in Psalm 89:6: "Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·beneh' ´E·lim']?" That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ´E·lim' by the singular form The·os' in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate.

The Hebrew word ´elo·him' (gods) appears to be from a root meaning "be strong." ´Elo·him' is the plural of ´eloh'ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ´Elo·him' is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ´Elo·him' is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: "That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [´Elo·him'] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God."-The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

The title ´Elo·him' draws attention to Jehovah's strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (Ge 1:1-2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces.

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ´elo·him', as is confirmed by Paul's quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called beneh' ha·´Elo·him', "sons of God" (KJ); "sons of the true God" (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: "(individual) divine beings, gods." And page 51 says: "the (single) gods," and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ´elo·him' is rendered "angels" (LXX); "godlike ones" (NW).

The word ´elo·him' is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply "gods." (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.-1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 ("goddess" Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ´elo·him' is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as "God" to Aaron and to Pharaoh.-Ex 4:16, ftn; <G<Þ>G>Ex <G<Ü>G>7:1.

In many places in the Scriptures ´Elo·him' is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·´Elo·him', F. Zorell says: "In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . 'Jahve is the [one true] God' De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc."-Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.

The Greek Term. The usual Greek equivalent of ´El and ´Elo·him' in the Septuagint translation and the word for "God" or "god" in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·os'.

The True God Jehovah. The true God is not a nameless God. His name is Jehovah. (De 6:4; Ps 83:18) He is God by reason of his creatorship. (Ge 1:1; Re 4:11) The true God is real (Joh 7:28), a person (Ac 3:19; Heb 9:24), and not lifeless natural law operating without a living lawgiver, not blind force working through a series of accidents to develop one thing or another. The 1956 edition of The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. XII, p. 743) commented under the heading "God": "In the Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish sense, the Supreme Being, the First Cause, and in a general sense, as considered nowadays throughout the civilized world, a spiritual being, self-existent, eternal and absolutely free and all-powerful, distinct from the matter which he has created in many forms, and which he conserves and controls. There does not seem to have been a period of history where mankind was without belief in a supernatural author and governor of the universe."

Proofs of the existence of "the living God." The fact of the existence of God is proved by the order, power, and complexity of creation, macroscopic and microscopic, and through his dealings with his people throughout history. In looking into what might be called the Book of Divine Creation, scientists learn much. One can learn from a book only if intelligent thought and preparation have been put into the book by its author.

In contrast to the lifeless gods of the nations, Jehovah is "the living God." (Jer 10:10; 2Co 6:16) Everywhere there is testimony to his activity and his greatness. "The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling." (Ps 19:1) Men have no reason or excuse for denying God, because "what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."-Ro 1:18-20.

Jehovah God is described in the Bible as living from time indefinite to time indefinite, forever (Ps 90:2, 4; Re 10:6), and as being the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible, the only true God. (1Ti 1:17) There existed no god before him.-Isa 43:10, 11.

Infinite, but approachable. The true God is infinite and beyond the mind of man fully to fathom. The creature could never hope to become equal to his Creator or understand all the workings of His mind. (Ro 11:33-36) But He can be found and approached, and He supplies his worshiper with all that is necessary for the worshiper's welfare and happiness. (Ac 17:26, 27; Ps 145:16) He is ever at the zenith of his ability and willingness to give good gifts and presents to his creatures, as it is written: "Every good gift and every perfect present is from above, for it comes down from the Father of the celestial lights, and with him there is not a variation of the turning of the shadow." (Jas 1:17) Jehovah always acts within his own righteous arrangements, doing all things on a legal basis. (Ro 3:4, 23-26) For this reason all of his creatures can have complete confidence in him, knowing that he always abides by the principles he establishes. He does not change (Mal 3:6), and there is no "variation" with him in the application of his principles. There is no partiality with him (De 10:17, 18; Ro 2:11), and it is impossible for him to lie.-Nu 23:16, 19; Tit 1:1, 2; Heb 6:17, 18.

His attributes. The true God is not omnipresent, for he is spoken of as having a location. (1Ki 8:49; Joh 16:28; Heb 9:24) His throne is in heaven. (Isa 66:1) He is all-powerful, being the Almighty God. (Ge 17:1; Re 16:14) "All things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him," and he is "the One telling from the beginning the finale." (Heb 4:13; Isa 46:10, 11; 1Sa 2:3) His power and knowledge extend everywhere, reaching every part of the universe.-2Ch 16:9; Ps 139:7-12; Am 9:2-4.

The true God is spirit, not flesh (Joh 4:24; 2Co 3:17), though he sometimes likens his attributes of sight, power, and so forth, to human faculties. Thus he speaks figuratively of his "arm" (Ex 6:6), his "eyes," and his "ears" (Ps 34:15), and he points out that, since he is the Creator of human eyes and ears, he certainly can see and hear.-Ps 94:9.

Some of God's primary attributes are love (1Jo 4:8), wisdom (Pr 2:6; Ro 11:33), justice (De 32:4; Lu 18:7, 8), and power (Job 37:23; Lu 1:35). He is a God of order and of peace. (1Co 14:33) He is completely holy, clean and pure (Isa 6:3; Hab 1:13; Re 4:8); happy (1Ti 1:11); and merciful (Ex 34:6; Lu 6:36). Many other qualities of his personality are described in the Scriptures.

His position. Jehovah is the Supreme Sovereign of the universe, the King eternal. (Ps 68:20; Da 4:25, 35; Ac 4:24; 1Ti 1:17) The position of his throne is the ultimate for superiority. (Eze 1:4-28; Da 7:9-14; Re 4:1-8) He is the Majesty (Heb 1:3; 8:1), the Majestic God, the Majestic One. (1Sa 4:8; Isa 33:21) He is the Source of all life.-Job 33:4; Ps 36:9; Ac 17:24, 25.

His righteousness and glory. The true God is a righteous God. (Ps 7:9) He is the glorious God. (Ps 29:3; Ac 7:2) He enjoys eminence above all (De 33:26), being clothed with eminence and strength (Ps 93:1; 68:34) and with dignity and splendor. (Ps 104:1; 1Ch 16:27; Job 37:22; Ps 8:1) "His activity is dignity and splendor themselves." (Ps 111:3) There is glory of splendor in his Kingship.-Ps 145:11, 12.

His purpose. God has a purpose that he will work out and that cannot be thwarted. (Isa 46:10; 55:8-11) His purpose, as expressed at Ephesians 1:9, 10, is "to gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth." By means of Christ all intelligent creation will be brought into full harmony with God. (Compare Mt 6:9, 10.) None existed before Jehovah; therefore he has seniority over all. (Isa 44:6) He, being the Creator, existed before any other gods, and 'none will exist after him,' because the nations will never produce a real, live god that is able to prophesy. (Isa 43:10; 46:9, 10) As the Alpha and the Omega (Re 22:13), he is the one and only Almighty God; he will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, being forever vindicated as the only Almighty God. (Re 1:8; 21:5, 6) He never forgets or forsakes his purposes or covenants, which makes him a God of dependability and loyalty.-Ps 105:8.

A communicative God. Having great love for his creatures, God provides ample opportunity for them to know him and his purposes. His own voice has been heard by men on earth on three occasions. (Mt 3:17; 17:5; Joh 12:28) He has communicated through angels (Lu 2:9-12; Ac 7:52, 53) and through men to whom he gave directions and revelations, such as Moses, and especially through his Son, Jesus Christ. (Heb 1:1, 2; Re 1:1) His written Word is his communication to his people, enabling them to be completely equipped as his servants and ministers, and directing them on the way to life.-2Pe 1:19-21; 2Ti 3:16, 17; Joh 17:3.

Contrasted with the gods of the nations. The true God, the Creator of the glorious heavenly bodies, has glory and brilliance beyond the ability of fleshly sight to endure, for "no man may see [God] and yet live." (Ex 33:20) Only the angels, spirit creatures, have vision that can behold his face in a literal sense. (Mt 18:10; Lu 1:19) Nevertheless, he does not expose men to such an experience. In loving-kindness he enables men to see his fine qualities through his Word, including the revelation of himself by means of his Son, Christ Jesus.-Mt 11:27; Joh 1:18; 14:9.

God gives us an idea of the effect of his presence in the book of Revelation. The apostle John had a vision that approximated seeing God, in the sense that it revealed the effect of beholding him on his throne. God was not like a man in appearance, for he has not revealed any figure of his to man, as John himself said later: "No man has seen God at any time." (Joh 1:18) Rather, God was shown to be like highly polished gems, precious, glowing, beautiful, that attract the eye and win delighted admiration. He was "in appearance, like a jasper stone and a precious red-colored stone, and round about the throne there [was] a rainbow like an emerald in appearance." (Re 4:3) Thus, he is lovely in appearance and pleasant to look at, causing one to lose oneself in wonderment. About his throne there is further glory and an atmosphere of calmness, serenity; the appearance of a perfect rainbow of emerald indicates that, reminding one of the enjoyable quieting calm that follows a storm.-Compare Ge 9:12-16.

How different the true God is, therefore, from the gods of the nations, who are often depicted as being grotesque, angry, fierce, implacable, merciless, whimsical as to their favors and disfavors, horrifying and fiendish, and ready to torture earthly creatures in some kind of inferno.

"A God exacting exclusive devotion." "Even though there are those who are called 'gods,' whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many 'gods' and many 'lords,' there is actually to us one God the Father." (1Co 8:5, 6) Jehovah is the Almighty God, the only true God, and he rightfully exacts exclusive devotion. (Ex 20:5) His servants must keep others out of, or excluded from, his proper place in their hearts and actions. He requires his worshipers to worship him with spirit and truth. (Joh 4:24) They should stand in reverent awe of him alone.-Isa 8:13; Heb 12:28, 29.

Among other mighty ones called "gods" in the Bible is Jesus Christ, who is "the only-begotten god." But he himself plainly said: "It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service." (Joh 1:18; Lu 4:8; De 10:20) The angels are "godlike ones," but one of them stopped John from worshiping him, saying: "Be careful! Do not do that! . . . Worship God." (Ps 8:5; Heb 2:7; Re 19:10) Mighty men among the Hebrews were called "gods" (Ps 82:1-7); but no man was purposed by God to receive worship. When Cornelius began to do obeisance to Peter, that apostle stopped him with the words, "Rise; I myself am also a man." (Ac 10:25, 26) Certainly the false gods invented and fashioned by men down through the centuries since the rebellion in Eden are not to be worshiped. The Mosaic Law warns strongly against turning from Jehovah to them. (Ex 20:3-5) Jehovah the true God will not forever tolerate rivalry from false, worthless gods.-Jer 10:10, 11.

After Christ's Millennial Reign, during which he brings to nothing all authority and power that is in opposition to God, he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, who will then become "all things to everyone." (Ro 8:33; 1Co 15:23-28) Eventually, all those living will acknowledge God's sovereignty and will praise his name continually.-Ps 150; Php 2:9-11; Re 21:22-27.

Best regards

vancouver

[JBJ]

Hi Vancouver

I think that John 1.1 could be translated either way, although the Christian way is more likely. But first, I want to clear something else up. You said

If it said that the Word was God then it would lead us to believe that Jesus was the Almighty which he could not be.

You say that Jesus could not be Jehovah, and therefore the verse doesn't say he is. This is reading into the text, and very unhealthy. What if my translation is the only translation? Then you may never accept it and live with a distorted view of God the rest of your life. So it's important to let the text speak first, then your beliefs.

Remember Jesus was an embryo and fetus for nine months then a vulnerable little baby and then a child for a number of years. Who was running the universe?

If Jehevah is one god with three persons, then there's no contradiction. The son, one person, is an embryo while the Father, another person, is taking care of the world. The Spirit of Jehovah also acted within the world. There's no contradiction. You must understand that both translations are possible physically before deciding which is possible linguistically.

If 'ho' isn't there then God is not meant.There is no word in Greek for 'a'. To differentiate between the Almighty God and just a god then there is the need to insert 'a' when there is no word for the 'ho'in front of god.

No, you're wrong here. "A" is not necessary everywhere there is no "ho" before a noun. And I can prove it. John 1.6 says, "There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God: his name was John." That's your translation. In the Greek, there is no "ho" before "theos" here. Look: http://www.greekbiblos.gr/IOANNH.htm Therefore a definite article can be implied though not written.

Thus both our translations are possible. Can I ask where you got your information from? And do you know good a web site with the New World Translation?

Now our question is, which interpretation did John mean for us to have? I'll continue later. Peace and truth be to you!

JBJ

[JBJ]

Hi Vancouver,

Here's why I think John refered to Jehovah, not just a "divine" angel. Keep in mind these are all evidences, not proof. Proof shows the truth for certain, while evidence only hints at the truth.

First, John could not insert "ho" before theos, it would make the Biblical teaching of Jesus logically impossible. John 1.1 says, ". . . kai theos en ho logos." If it said "kai ho theos en ho logos" it would have two subjects, theos and logos, and two predicates, theos and logos. In English, that would mean the Word was God and God was the Word. That contradicts the Gospel which says Jesus is not equal to God, one is not the same as the other (although very similar). Thus, John could not say the Word was "ho theos" in those words. If John meant the God, he'd have to imply it in other ways in the passage. So let's look at the context!

First notice who's in the context. Besides the Logos, we have God and we have men. The trinity says the Logos was God and man. Angels are not mentioned in the passage. Thus John makes connects with Jesus to God and to men. He makes no connection with angels.

Notice the words. John says Jesus is "theos" which is the word for God. If John meant that Jesus is God, he would use theos. (He might use "Lord," "kyrios," because YHWH, Jehovah, was translated kyrios, but "master," "adonai" was also translated kyrios and was used of other people. "Theos" would be much closer to implying deity because it is never used for humans. John uses kyrios for Jesus later anyway when he meets Thomas.) However, if John meant angel, he could have used the Greek word for angel! Why did he confuse us with all this theos business if he could simply state the Logos was an angel? John, in my mind, was a master in wording. His repitition and order of words has impressed me more than any other biblical writer, especially in 1 John. I don't think he would confuse people needlessly. Thus he wouldn't use theos instead of "angel."

Notice the word order. John uses a preverbal structure, putting the preposition before the subject instead of after it. The normal Greek structure is to put the subject first. Why be different? Having the less usual structure draws attention to it. It's like shouting out, "Look! The Logos is theos!" If John drew attention to this point, why was he ambigious using theos instead of angel? It would be like making a loud statement, but then purposefully stuttering when saying it.

Again, this isn't proof, it's evidence. These are hints that John meant the God. But I don't see any hints that John meant a god.

JBJ

[vancouver]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 02-04-02 AT 08:37&nbsp;PM (GMT)]Greetings

It is always best to take everything into context. We also need to know how wrong doctrines contaminated Christ's teachings.

Bible Interpretation-By Whose Influence?

ONE definition of the word "interpret" is "to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance." (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) Thus, one's interpretation of anything is usually influenced by one's background, education, and upbringing.

What, though, about Bible interpretation? Are we free to explain Bible passages according to our own "belief, judgment, or circumstance"? Naturally, most Bible scholars and translators claim that they do not do so but that they are guided by God.

A case in point is what is said in a footnote to John 1:1 in A New Version of the Four Gospels, published in 1836 by John Lingard under the pseudonym "A Catholic." It says: "Men of every persuasion find the confirmation of their peculiar opinions in the sacred volumes: for, in fact, it is not the Scripture that informs them, but they that affix their own meaning to the language of Scripture."

Though the point is well taken, what was the writer's intent? His comment was in support of his interpretation of that verse, which he translated: "At the beginning was 'the word;' and 'the word' was with God; and 'the word' was God," a typical Trinitarian rendition.

What impelled the writer to translate John 1:1 in support of the Trinitarian doctrine? Is it "the Scripture that informs" him to do so? That is impossible, for nowhere in the Bible is the teaching of the Trinity to be found. Note what The New Encyclopaedia Britannica says on this point: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament." In addition, Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins observed: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it."

What, then, can we conclude about those who support a Trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1 or any other Bible verse? By Mr. Lingard's own criterion, "it is not the Scripture that informs them, but they that affix their own meaning to the language of Scripture."

Happily, we have God's own Word to guide us on this. "You know this first," said the apostle Peter, "that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit."-2 Peter 1:20, 21.

Greek Philosophy-Did It Enrich Christianity? ***

Another deceptive teaching had to do with the position of the prehuman Jesus, the notion that he was equal to his Father. Explains the book The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The doctrine of the Trinity . . . had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures." What was that source? The doctrine "grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."

Indeed, as time went by and the Church Fathers became increasingly influenced by Neoplatonism, the Trinitarians gained ground. Third-century Neoplatonic philosophy seemingly enabled them to reconcile the irreconcilable-to make a threefold God appear like one God. By philosophical reasoning they claimed that three persons could be one God while retaining their individuality!

The truth of the Bible, however, clearly shows that Jehovah alone is Almighty God, Jesus Christ is His lesser created Son, and the holy spirit is His active force. (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; Acts 2:4; Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14) The Trinity doctrine dishonors the only true God and confuses people, turning them away from a God they cannot comprehend.

One more victim of the Neoplatonic influence on Christian thinking was the Scripture-based millennial hope. (Revelation 20:4-6) Origen was noted for his condemnation of millennialists. Why was he so opposed to this well-founded Biblical doctrine of Christ's rule of one thousand years? The Catholic Encyclopedia answers: "In view of the Neo-Platonism on which his doctrines were founded . . . , [Origen] could not side with the millenarians."

I don't know about the New World Translation on the Web but it is easily available from any Jehovah's Witness. Whether or not you contribute towards the printing of it is up to the person receiving it. There is no charge. We contribute ourselves to keep the distribution of all literature going. We use our time freely and put petrol in our cars at our own expense. We do this because we love God and people.

All the best

vancouver