Home » Posts tagged 'Christianity'

Tag Archives: Christianity

Islam Punishes the Rapist

Kaleef K. Karim

One of the misconceptions towards Islam is that a rape victim gets punished while the rapist gets unpunished and can walk away free. It is assumed by critics that men in Islam can commit rape with impunity. Another lie Islamophobes, Anti-Islam propagandists do spread is that a victim who has been raped has to produce four witnesses in order for the rapist to get convicted and punished. Critics have never produced any evidence either from the Quran or Hadith anywhere indicating that there has to be four eye-witnesses for a rapist to get punished, this is just made up by crazy deluded Islamophobes, they are a bunch of hateful mischief-makers. The only time when there has to be four eye-witnesses needed is for adultery, and this is practically impossible to convict anyone with this.

At the time of Prophet Muhammad (p) a woman went out for prayer and a man tried raping her, ‘she shouted’ and ran off, she got away. The woman informed a man, that such and such happened to her. This incident was reported to Prophet Muhammed (p) and he declared the man who had done such evil thing, to be stoned to death. Here is the Hadth:

Narrated Wa’il ibn Hujr: When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had intercourse with her and brought him to her. She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Messenger of Allah. When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Messenger of Allah, I am the man who did it to her. He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (Abu Dawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death. Abu Dawud said: Asbat bin Nasr has also transmitted it from Simak. Reference: Sunan Abi Dawud [Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud)] 437 In-book reference: Book 40, Hadith 29. English translation: Book 39, Hadith 4366

What we see from the above Hadith, is a woman reported what had happened to her, that a man tried raping her and the accused when proved was stoned. One main important thing in this Hadith, if you all noticed is that the woman did NOT need four witnesses, her own testimony was enough to convict/punish the perpetrator.

In another Hadith it’s reported that a slave who was in charge of other slaves, he forced a slave-girl among the slaves who he was in charge, he had forced intercourse with her. When the companion of Prophet Muhammad (p), Umar Ibn Khattab found out what had happened, he had the slave who raped the girl to be flogged and the victim walk away without getting punished:

Malik related to me from Nafi that a slave was in charge of the slaves in the khumus and he forced a slave-girl among those slaves against her will and had intercourse with her. Umar ibn al-Khattab had him flogged and banished him, and he did not flog the slave-girl because the slave had forced her. Muwatta Malik » Hudud English reference: Book 41, Hadith 15 Arabic reference : Book 41, Hadith 1517

As we see from the Hadith already shown, it’s evident that a victim does not get punished. The assumption by Anti-Islam evil mischief makers that the victim gets flogged because she reports been raped is false. The only person that gets punished if found to be guilty, is the rapist. In another hadith the head of State, the ruler of the Muslims Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (5th Caliph) gave judgement on a rapist:

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab that Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan gave a judgement that the rapist had to pay the raped woman her bride- price. Yahya said that he heard Malik say, “What is done in our community about the man who rapes a woman, virgin or non-virgin, if she is free, is that he must pay the bride-price of the like of her. If she is a slave, he must pay what he has diminished of her worth. The hadd-punishment in such cases is applied to the rapist, and there is no punishment applied to the raped woman.” English reference: Book 36, Hadith 14 Arabic reference: Book 36, Hadith 1418
Muwatta Malik » Judgements

Again we see clear evidence that the rapist gets punished and there is no punishment for the victim. You would have also noticed in the above Hadith that the rapist had to pay compensation to the victim.

Oliver Leaman who is a Professor of Philosophy and Zantker Professor of Judaic Studies at the University of Kentucky reiterates what I mentioned at the start of this article that the only time when there is four witnesses needed is for adultery:

“Critics also point to the lack of equal protection for victims of rape in Muslim countries that follow Sharia. They allege that it is impossible to prove rape. For purposes of this discussion, it is important to note that the Sharia makes a distinction betweenadultery and rape and applies different rules. As the Quran clearly states, the proof that adultery has occurred requires four eye-witnesses to the act, which must have been committed by a man and a woman not validly married to one another, and the act must have been wilfully committed by consenting adults. Proof can also be determined by a confession. But this confession must be voluntary, and based on legal counsel; it must be repeated on four separate occasions, and made by a person who is sane. Furthermore, those who bring a charge of adultery against an individual must provide four eye-witnesses. Otherwise, the accuser is then accorded a sentence for defamation (which means flogging or a prison sentence), and his or her testimony is excluded in all future court cases. Thus it is clear that the required testimony of four male witnesses having seen the actual penetration applies to illicit sexual relations, not to rape. The requirements for proof of rape are less stringent.
Rape charges can be brought and a case proven based on the sole testimony of the victim, providing that circumstantial evidence supports the allegations. It is these strict criteria of proof which leads to the frequent observation that where injustice against women does occur, it is not because of Islamic law. It happens either due to misinterpretation of the intricacies of the Sharia laws governing these matters, or a cultural traditions; or due to corruption and blatant disregard of the law, or indeed some combination of these phenomena.”[1]

Conclusion: It is evident from Prophet Muhammad (p) and all the way to the followers of the companions, they have always punished anyone who had forced intercourse with a female. The assumption by critics that there has to be four witnesses in order for a rapist to get convicted is outright lie as shown already. Four witnesses are not needed when it comes to rape, the only time four witnesses are needed is for adultery. In light of the evidences shown Islam forbids rape, and anyone found to be engaged in such under Islamic law, would be punished severely.

Article: Islam on Forced Marriages:


[1] Controversies in Contemporary Islam By Professor Oliver Leaman page 78

Christmas and Jesus’s Birth

This article is originally from this website: www.discover-the-truth.com

We are approaching the time of the year, where Christians around the World celebrate the supposed birth of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), which is December 25th. Question arises:- ‘is there any evidence from the Bible for the assumed date, 25th December?’ The Gospel of Luke relates the time, the birth of Jesus Christ:

Luke 2:8 “And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah,the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Notice, the shepherds were abiding out-door in the field. They had their flocks in the field at night. The imagery of the shepherds living out in the fields’, in the open field at night, and it is the coldest part of the day, and the coldest season of the year is absurd for some Christians to say that ‘Jesus was born in December’. No shepherd would be outside at that time of the year, sitting outside in the field watching their flocks. Common wisdom suggests that Jesus Christ was born in spring and possibly summer time the latest, but not winter time. The evidence presented from the Gospel of Luke thus shows that Jesus could not have been born in December.

C. L. Chapman in his book ‘Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth’ writes:

“The Idea of shepherds being in the field in the middle of winter is outrageous. The birth of Jesus had to be in the spring, summer or, most probably, the fall.”[1]

Holman Christian Standard Bible ‘Harmony of the Gospels’ also comments:

“The closest thing to biblical evidence is the reference to the shepherds watching over their flocks at night in the open fields (Lk 2:8). This would indicate a night-time birth (hence our Christmas Eve traditions). It would also seem to indicate a birth between March and November, since the sheep were usually kept in folds rather than in pen fields during the winter months, making our December date of the observance suspect.”[2]

It is commonly known among Christian clergy that 25th December was chosen by the Church to adopt and absorb pagan festivals. So whose Birthday are Christians really celebrating on the 25th December? The answer, they are celebrating the pagan god Mithras. The Persian god Mithras’s birthday had always been celebrated on 25th December.

Episcopal Deacon Vicki K. Black says:

“….Christians in the fourth century decided to adopt December 25 as their feast of Jesus birth. This was the day that the Romans celebrated the birthday of the ‘unconquerable sun,’ a festival in honor of the sun-god Mithra, a deity of Persian origin. The festival was linked to the winter solstice and was a day marked by joyful celebration and great splendour in Rome, making it a fitting date for Christians to celebrate the birth of their own ‘unconquerable Son.’ So from the very beginning Christians has shared it day with celebrations from other religions.” [3]

Reverend Scotty McLennan also admits that the birthday of the god Mithra was celebrated on the 25th December:

“In the ancient Roman world, December 25 was celebrated as the birthday of the god Mithra, who was identified with the sun and called the sun of righteousness. Along with his December 25 birthday date, the title ‘sun of Righteousness’ was subsequently transferred from Mithra to Jesus and is preserved that way in the third verse of the Christmas carol ‘Hark the Herald Angels sing.’” [4]

In the book ‘An Introduction to the Bible’ written By Robert Kugler and Patrick J. Hartin say that ‘December 25 the was taken over by Christians to celebrate the birth of God’s son’, in reality as they will explain, it was copied from the pagans:

“The mysteries of Mithras originated in Persia, and the cult was very popular among Roman soldiers. In the 3rd Century C.E. it became the state religion of Rome. Women were excluded from participation. Information about this cult is gleaned from carvings found in caves (called Mithraeum) where rituals took place. Mithras was worshipped as the sun-god, who was born on December 25 (the winter solstice) and was visited by shepherds. Later sacrificed a bull (the Zodiac sign of Taurus), and from this bull’s blood came new life. Initiates had to go through seven stages of initiation, each under the protection of a planetary god. These seven stages were a preparation for the eventual salvation that the initiate would experience at death when the soul moved through seven planetary stages to the place from which it originated. Every Mithraeum had a central statue of Mithras slaying a bull. One can note many similarities with the rituals of Christianity: December 25 was taken over by Christians to celebrate the birth of God’s Son on earth, while baptism and common meals were two features that Mithraism and Christianity held in common.” [5]

Since it is established clearly that Jesus was not born in December, but most probably in Spring or summer time, why do Christians still continue to celebrate Jesus Christ’s birthday on December 25th?


[1] Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth [Copyright 2010] By C. L. Chapman page 102
[2]HCSB-[Holman Christian Standard Bible] Harmony of the Gospels [Copyright 2007] By Steven L. Cox, Kendell H. Easley page 290
[3] Welcome to the Church Year: An Introduction to the Seasons of the Episcopal Church [Copyright 2004] By Vicki K. Black page 28
[4] Jesus Was a Liberal- Reclaiming Christianity for All [Copyright 2009] By Reverend Scotty McLennan page 201
[5] An Introduction to the Bible [Copyright 2009] By Robert Kugler, Patrick J. Hartin page 345

Pagan Sources on Jesus Crucifixion, genuine or hearsay?

Originally posted from this website: www.discover-the-truth.com

Christian apologists use any source for the crucifixion of Jesus; even if the author did not refer to Jesus by his name, somehow apologists would mingle, spice their arguments up that the author(s) must have referred to Jesus. They wouldn’t care whether a passage is a forgery or hearsay, they would add to their collection that Jesus crucifixion outside the Bible is 100% attested, when that is not true in reality. The reason Apologists use various sources from non-Christian authors, they know that ‘thinking’ humans always need outside sources for them to be convinced that, Jesus crucifixion is true in order for them to believe Christianity. All the sources Christian Apologists use come from hearsay, because none of those so-called sources, apologists cite are eye-witness accounts. All the names provided that assumingly attest to Jesus crucifixion lived long after Jesus. In other words, these authors mentioned never lived at the time when Jesus alive.

CORNELIUS TACITUS (56 – 117 A.D.) Who was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. The passage which is cited by Apologists on Jesus Crucifixion:

“Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also.” Annals XV, 44

What the passage reveals is:

  • Tacitus doesn’t provide any source where he got this information from.
  • Tacitus names a person who was put to death and uses the name ‘Christus, which cannot be referred to Jesus. If Tacitus was indeed referring to Jesus and he got this information from the Roman archives, as Apologists assume, why didn’t Tacitus use Jesus name? Why did he just refer to the person being killed under Pilate by the name Christus?
  • Tacitus mentions that this person (Christus) was put to death by “Pilate procurator”. What we know historically contradicts what Tacitus says. Pilate was not a “procurator” but a ‘prefect’.

Even if we assume for sake of argument that this passage refers to Jesus, Tacitus most certainly received this information from hearsay. There is absolutely nothing in this passage which can be taken as proof that Jesus was crucified. Most probably Tacitus heard rumours about a man called ‘christus’ and wrote something about it. Scholars are also of the opinion that, Tacitus statement was taken from other Christians. Then, such source cannot be independent information. He is merely repeating what other Christians are saying about Jesus, and most Christians themselves would boast, exaggerate things.

German Professor Leonhard Goppelt writes:
“We would be very much inclined to ascribe special significance to non-Christian information about Jesus because of its ostensible lack of bias. Our expectations would be high, e.g., if the trial folios of Pilate should be discovered on a piece of papyrus. In all probability, however, such a discovery would lead to disappointment since they would offer only a sum of misunderstandings, much like the accounts of Plinius about the Christians. Such is the confirmed the small number of extant non-Christian sources of information about Jesus from the 1st and 2nd centuries.AMONG THE ROMAN HISTORIANS, JESUS IS MENTIONED ONLY ONCE EACH BY TACITUS AND SUETONIUS. WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT HIM CA. A.D, 110 HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM STATEMENTS OF CHRISTIANS. This fact is not astonishing at all since, after all, for the empire in this period, the activity of Jesus and his disciples was nothing more than a remote affair with hardly more than local significance.” [1]

Professor Richard Thomas France says:
“THE BRIEF NOTICE IN TACITUS ANNALS XV.44 MENTIONS ONLY HIS TITLE, CHRISTUS, AND HIS EXECUTION IN JUDEA BY ORDER OF PONTIUS PILATUS. NOR IS THERE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TACITUS BASES THIS ON INDEPENDENT INFORMATION-IT IS WHAT CHRISTIANS WOULD BE SAYING IN ROME IN THE EARLY SECOND CENTURY. Suetonius and Pliny, together with Tacitus, testify to the significant presence of Christians in Rome and other parts of the empire from the mid-sixties onwards, but add nothing to our knowledge of their founder. No other clear pagan references to Jesus can be dated before AD 150/1/, by which time the source of any information is more likely to be Christian propaganda than an independent record.” [2]

American New Testament Scholar Bart D. Ehrman also writes on Tacitus’s passage, he says:
“…would Tacitus know what he knew? It is pretty obvious that he had heard of Jesus, but he was writing eighty-five years after Jesus would have died, and by that time Christians were certainly telling stories of Jesus (the Gospels had been written already, for example), whether the mythcists are wrong or right. IT SHOULD BE CLEAR IN ANY EVENT THAT TACITUS IS BASING HIS COMMENT ABOUT JESUS ON HEARSAY RATHER THAN, SAY DETAILED HISTORICAL RESEARCH. Had he done serious research, one might have expected him to say more, if he even just a bit. But even more to the point, brief though his comment is, Tacitus is precisely wrong in one thing he says. He calls Pilate the ‘procurator’ of Judea. We now know from the inscription discovered in 1961 at Caesarea that as governor, Pilate had the title and rank, not of procurator (one who dealt principally with revenue collection), but of prefect (one who also had military forces at his command). This must show that Tacitus did not look up any official record of what happened to Jesus, written at the time of his execution (if in fact such a record ever existed, which is highly doubtful). He therefore had heard the information. Whether he heard it from Christians or someone else is anyone’s guess.“ [3]
What I stated at the start that, most probable is that, the statement of Tacitus was not independent research; the Scholars quoted, confirmed this that, Tacitus statement cannot be taken as independent information. He is just repeating what others are saying, his information is derived from hearsay.

THALLUS is another historian quoted by Apologists that, he wrote something on the midday darkness linked up to Jesus crucifixion, of the Gospels. There are no fragments that have survived from his works, all of it has perished. Thallus statement is quoted by Africanus in the second century (or third century A.D.). Here is the passage:

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness. The rocks were rent by an earthquake and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover. But an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time… Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth-manifestly that one of which we speak.” Chronography XVIII, 47

As you read the passage, we do not know what Thallus actually wrote. All we have is Africanus commenting and dismissing Thallus statement on the eclipse. Christian apologists have connected Thallus statement about the darkness that befall Judea with Jesus crucifixion, they try to connect the two, as if Thallus is talking about the same event, in the same year. All we have is Thallus making a comment of a supernatural event of an eclipse, and Apologists have stretched his statement connecting it to Jesus crucifixion. There is absolutely nothing in this passage for anyone to be convinced that Thallus mentioned anything about Jesus. The most logical conclusion regarding this passage is Thallus merely reported on a solar eclipse then later Christians associated it with the crucifixion.

Reverend Nathaniel Lardner D.D. who was an English theologian goes in great detail on Thallus statement, he writes:
“IV. Thallus, a Syrian author is sometimes alleged by learned moderns, as bearing witness to the darkness at the time of our saviour’s passion. Whether there be any good reason for so doing, may appear from a few observations. In the fragments of Africanus, which are in the Chronicle of G. Synecellus of the eighth century, and in the collections of Eusebius’s Greek Chronicle, as made by Joseph Scaliger, that very learned ancient Christian writer says,
“There was a dreadful darkness over the whole world, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many buildings were overturned in Judea, and in other parts of the earth. This darkness Thallus calls an eclipse of the sub, in the third book of his histories: but as seems to me, very improperly; for the Jews keep the Passover in the fourteenth day of the moon; at which time an eclipse of the sun is impossible.”
Upon this passage I must observe, 1. THAT IT APPEARS ONLY IN THE FRAGMENTS OF AFRICANUS; WHEREAS IT OFTEN HAPPENS THAT, IN COLLECTIONS OF THAT KIND, WE DO NOT FIND SO MUCH ACCURACY AS COULD BE WISHED. 2. THE WORDS OF THALLUS ARE NOT CITED: FOR WHICH REASON WE CANNOT PRESUME TO FORM A JUDGMENT CONCERNING WHAT HE SAID. 3. This passage of Thallus is no where quoted or referred to by any other ancient writer that I know of. It is not in any work of Eusebius, excepting those Greek collections of his chronicle, which are very inaccurate and imperfect: nor is there any notice taken of it in Jerome’s version of the Chronicle.
The time of Thallus seems not be exactly known. If indeed there was anything in his history relating to transactions in Judea in the time of our saviour, he must have lived between that time and Africanus; but of that we want some farther proof. In Eusebius’s Evangelical preparation is quoted a long passage of Africanus, from the third book of his Chronology; where are mentioned, all together, Diodorus, Thallus, Castor, Polybius , and Phlegon. And afterwards Hellanicus and Philochorus, who wrot a history of Syria; Diodorus, and Alexander Polyhistor. Whereby we learn that Thallus was a Syrian, who wrote in the Greek language.
Thallus is quoted by divers ancient Christian writers. Justin Martyr, in his exhortation to the Greeks, allegeth Hellanicus, Philochorus, Castor, and Thallus, as bearing witness to the antiquity of Moses, the Jewish lawgiver.
Tertullian and Minucius Felix quote Thallus and divers other authors, as acknowledging Saturn to have been a man who had lived on this earth. Thallus and other writers are quoted with a like view by Lactantius. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch about the year 180, in his atter to Autolicus, quotes Thalluys, to prove that Belus lived long before the Trojan War; which passage is quoted again from Theophilus by Lactantius. All these quotations of THALLUS APPEAR TO BE MADE PROPERLY: AND HE IS SO QUOTED WITH OTHER WRITERS OF ANTIQUITY, THAT ONE MIGHT BE APT TO THINK THAT HE LIVED RATHER BEFORE THAN AFTER OUR SAVIOURS COMING; nor is there anything here said of an eclipse, which may induce us to think that the passage in the fragments of Africanus is not material. Indeed if I was unwilling to admit anything disrespectful to the memory of so great and learned an ancient as Africanus, I SHOULD SUSPECT THAT THE ECLIPSE MENTIONED BY THALLUS, (WHENEVER IT HAPPENED,) WAS A NATURAL ECLIPSE OF THE SUN. FOR IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT A LEARNED HISTORIAN, AS THALLUS WAS, SHOULD USE THAT EXPRESSION CONCERNING ANY OTHER DARKNESS OR OBSCURITY. CONSEQUENTLY, WHAT HE SAID COULD NOT HAVE ANY REFERENCE TO THE DARKNESS IN JUDEA AT THE TIME OF OUR SAVIOUR’S LAST SUFFERINGS.” [4]

Retired Professor George Albert Wells:
Jacoby notes that it is not certain from what Africanus said that Thallus made any mention of Jesus or Jewish history at all, and may simply have recorded the eclipse of the sun in the reign of Tiberius, for which astronomers have calculated the date 24 November A.D. 29; it may have been Africanus who introduced Jesus by retorting- from his knowledge of Mark- that this was no eclipse, but a supernatural event. That this may be so is conceded by R.T. France who, having studied both Bruce’s argument and my reply to it in DJE, comments: “We do not know whether Thallus actually mentioned Jesus’s crucifixion or whether this was Africanus’s interpretation of a period of darkness which Thallus had not specifically linked with Jesus.” France also rejects the confident statement that Thallus wrote “about A.D. 52”, and says that ‘his date of writing is not known’….” [5]

The evidence presented again for another so-called historian, cited by Christian Apologists, is refuted by their own Christian experts that, what Thallus mentioned was most likely just an eclipse and had nothing to do with Jesus crucifixion.

MARA BAR SERAPION Who is only known for writing a letter to his son while in captivity, which allegedly, somehow speaks about Jesus. Let’s read the passage and see if there is any mention of Jesus, of the Gospels:

“What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plaque came upon them as a judgement for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that, that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians clied of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on the teaching of Plato.”

Come on Apologists, get serious! There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in this passage that says anything about Jesus. It doesn’t say where this ‘wise king’ lived. It doesn’t mention how this ‘wise king’ was killed. It just mentions that Jews killed the ‘wise king’, that is it. How can apologists be 100% sure that this is referring to Jesus Christ of the Gospels, when there is no detail whatsoever to know, who Serapion is speaking about? If Serapion wanted to refer to Jesus in this passage, why didn’t he do so by name, as he done with Socrates and Pythagoras? Why did he just say a ‘wise king’ got killed by the Jews and left it at that?

Conclusion: I believe the passages cited by Apologists, on Jesus crucifixion are worthless. The evidences presented by Scholars would make anyone think, these passages cited by Christian Apologists are useless. The best we can say is that, these passages cited are second-hand hearsay of what they heard other Christians say. None of these authors cited by Christians are contemporary eye-witness accounts of Jesus life. All the authors mentioned by Christians, in defence of Jesus crucifixion, never lived at the time when Jesus was alive. Isn’t it ironic that there is not one contemporary writer when Jesus was alive, that mentions anything about Jesus crucifixion outside the New Testament?

[1] The Ministry of Jesus in Its Theological Significance By Leonhard Goppelt Volume 1 [Copy Right 1981] page 18 – 19
[2] The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus,The Founder Of Christianity by Professor R. T. France http://leaderu.com/truth/1truth21.html
[3] Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth By Bart D. Ehrman
[4] The works of Nathaniel Lardner D.D. With A Life by Dr. Kippis (1835) Volume 7 page 121 – 123
[5] The Jesus Legend By George Albert Wells page 43 – 46

1st Corinthians chapter 9: Apostle Paul’s Missionary Deception (Taqiyya)!

Originally posted from this website: www.discover-the-truth.com

Christian critics of Islam have long been bringing up the false statement, asserting that Muslims are allowed to lie, be deceptive in order to bring non-Muslims to Islam. Let’s be clear, nowhere in Islam is there anything what these liars have stated. I will address this false claim soon, God willing.

Paul admits during his ministry, preaching his Paulinism (Christianity of today), he falsely acted in order to draw people to his faith. In the following passage he openly confesses that he used deception for conversion:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

Paul is confessing in the above passage that, he acted as a Jew in order to convert them to his faith. He even acted as a pagan so that he can lure them to his religion. The above verse shows that Paul would go in great lengths to spread his religion by deception. Let’s see now what the experts have to say on the above passage.

Loyal D. Rue who is a Professor of religion and Philosophy at Luther college, comments on the passage, he writes:

“In the Christian tradition there is very early precedent for the use of deceptive means for evangelistic purposes. St. Paul himself makes a remarkable admission of his chameleon-like behaviour in the winning converts. Like the consummate used-car salesman, Paul pretends to share the concerns of his immediate audience in order to manipulate them into submitting to his Gospel: “Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” [1]

In the Book “Shell Games: Studies in Scams, Frauds, and Deceits (1300-1650)” Richard Raiswell says that deception is endorsed in the Bible if it is for just cause:

“In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul describes how he deliberately masqueraded in false colours in order to advance the cause of the faith: ‘To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.’ If the apostle can become all things to all men, then it would see that Scripture implicitly endorses deception when practiced in pursuit of a just cause. Perhaps most conclusively, though, God himself seems not have been above engaging in a little deception from time to time. To ruin Ahab, King of Israel, for instance, the Lord became a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab’s prophets. Later, speaking through the person of Ezechiel to certain of the elders of Israel, God makes it clear that if the prophet appears to have been deceived in some matter, this deception is of divine origin. In the New Testament, Christ also appears on occasion to have been less than honest. When, after the resurrection, Peter and Cleopas set off for the town of Emmaus, they encountered Christ on the road; as they approached their destination, Luke records that Christ pretended to go further.” [2]

James Prince who is the author of the book “The True face of the Antichrist” also makes mention that Paul is a deceiver. I will remind the viewers that this individual is a Christian himself who believes in Jesus Christ, but he does not believe in Paul, according to him he is the “Antichrist”:

“Paul’s testimony proves his own hypocrisy here in 1 Corinthians, 9, 19-22…….…….. Again here I would trade the word save for trap in Paul’s case. Then Paul pretended to be the saviour after all this. I also believe that a person who is weak needs someone strong for support either physically or spiritually. Let me tell you too that neither Jesus nor his disciples became homosexuals to save homosexuals and neither prostitutes to save prostitutes. They didn’t become all to save everybody. This is totally abomination and hypocrisy. Paul, from his own writing, his own admission said that he was all to trap people. What wouldn’t the devil do to deceive? Jesus warned us though. See Matthew 24:4. “Jesus answered: Watch out that no one deceives you.” [3]

Even the early Church fathers understood this passage (1 Corinthians 9:19-22) that Christians are allowed to use deception for greater good. Christian theologian, Clement of Alexandria (born in the 150 – 215 A.D.), points out to Paul’s statement that lying is allowed in certain circumstances. Professor T. Brian Mooney writes about this in his book and says:

“Clement of Alexandria while praising the Christian who would not lie even in the face of torture or death makes an exception for ‘therapeutic’ lies, alluding to St. Paul’s dissimulations in Acts 16:3 and 1 Corinthians 9:20 (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 7.9.53).” [4]

Further evidence which shows Paul openly confessing to the Christian Corinthians that he used deception against them. The verse states:

Corinthians 12:16 Now granted, I have not burdened you; yet sly as I am, I took you in by deceit!

When one reads the above verse, it becomes even more evident that Paul used deception in many instances. Of-course Christian apologists in a desperate attempt to save Paul’s neck, they will say: “these words are not Paul’s but the words of the Corinthians who are accusing Paul of this”. Whatever way apologists want to put it, the verse is very clear that Paul confesses to using deception or the Christians Corinthians say that of Paul. If apologists don’t agree, saying it was the Corinthians accusing Paul of this, charging him with deception, either way Paul is a deceiver. Earliest Christians themselves didn’t find Paul to be truthful, so how can Christians of today try defend him, when the Corinthians charged Paul with deception?

The academic evidences presented shows that Paul indeed sanctioned lying. Paul not only deceived people, but also demonstrated to his Paulinism followers how to deceive humans. This kind of deception is very widespread. One only needs to look at third world countries and see for themselves, how missionaries deceive, con people out of their lives. So, next time Christian missionaries try use the argument that Islam allows lying (when that is NOT true), brothers/sisters just show them their Holy Paul used deception to convert people to his Paulinism.


[1] By the Grace of Guile: The Role of Deception in Natural History and Human Affairs [Copyright 1994] By Loyal D. Rue page 243-244
[2] Shell Games: Studies in Scams, Frauds, and Deceits (1300-1650) [Copyright 2004] by Margaret Reeves, Richard Raiswell, Mark Crane page 16 – 17
[3] The True Face of the Antichrist [Copyright 2013] By James Prince page 92
[4] Responding to Terrorism: Political Philosophical and Legal Perspectives By Robert Imre, Professor T. Brian Mooney, Benjamin Clarke page 76

Jewish sources on Jesus Crucifixion, genuine or forgery?

The article Below was Originally Posted from this website – Link:

J.R: Josephus work is a huge volume. It consists of twenty books. What is strange, many pages are devoted to irrelevant leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of one king alone. Yet Jesus who was the greatest man, a person who was foretold thousands of times by the Prophets, greater than any King on earth, gets only a few lines about him in his book? It doesn’t make sense at all.

What would be a good historical non-Christian source on Jesus? A good reliable source would be a contemporary historian that lived and wrote during the time in which Christ was alive. Any historian living or writing about him after he had ascended cannot be taken as 100% fact, that we can rely on, because they never witnessed anything personally with their own eyes. A devastating fact to Christians is that there is not one single contemporary historian, when Jesus was alive, who had ever wrote about Christ, does not exist. All the supposed sources Christians cling to, were written decades after Jesus alleged crucifixion. In other words none of the historians that Christians cite have ever met Jesus in real life. Any historian writing decades after Jesus life is merely writing whatever others are saying. In other words, he is writing hearsay, not facts he himself witnessed.

So, what is the evidence Christians use in defence of the Crucifixion, outside the Bible? Flavius Josephus, who was a well renowned Jewish historian, was born two years after the alleged Crucifixion of Jesus. In the year 93 A.D to 94 A.D. Josephus wrote a book called:- “Antiquities of the Jews”, the book consists of 20 volumes. In the 18th Volume there is a passage which speaks of Jesus, according to Christians it was written by the pen of Josephus. Here is the passage on what it said about this so-called Jesus:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” [1]

Isn’t it just wonderful in this little piece of info, we have (1) Jesus is more than just a Human (god). (2) Miracles he performed. (3) His Ministry among Jews & Gentiles. (4) He is the Messiah. (5) He is condemned by the Jewish Priests. (6) Sentenced by Pilate. (7) He died on the Cross. (8) Came back to life on the third day. (9) He fulfilled the Divine Prophecy.

Would any sane person really believe that a hardcore Jew, a Pharisee would write something like this? This statement is written by a Christian not Josephus.

This brief passage is the ‘best proof’ for the crucifixion of Jesus outside the Bible; this is according to Christian Apologists. However, when one examines the passage and its historicity it becomes clear, that this passage was inserted into the work of Josephus. The passage was never quoted once by any of the Church Fathers such as:- Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and many, many more. Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea who flourished in the 4th century was the first Christian who made mention of it. Many Christian Scholars believe the passage was inserted into the work of Josephus by Eusebius. Isn’t it ironic for well over 200 years not one Church father quotes such a passage? Origen who was an early Church Father, quoted extensively from the work of Josephus in defence of Christianity. Yet neither he, nor any Church fathers quoted the passage before Eusebius in the fourth century. Before I proceed, showing evidences from Christian Scholars that the passage is a forgery, I would like to answer fictitious arguments raised by some desperate Evangelists who still cling to the passage being genuine.

Missionary arguments:

• TF is found in every manuscript
• It is the style of Josephus to write like that
• Some part of the TF is genuine

I will sum up all three arguments into one. When desperate Evangelists say: ‘TF is found in every Manuscript’, they mislead people, they do not tell their fellow Christians that the earliest manuscript for Testimonium Flavianum is an Arabic Manuscript from the tenth century. They do not have any Manuscript before Eusebius time, nor is it mentioned by any Church father before 3rd Century. Another fictitious argument they bring up, is they say:- ‘it is the style of Josephus to write like that’. How can we know what the style of Josephus is, when we don’t have any of his works intact from the time when he wrote it? They don’t even have one church fathers testimony before Eusebius saying anything on the TF. If the works of Josephus were in the hands of Jews, then we can give more credit that the passage is genuine. But Josephus Books were not stored by Jews, but Christian fathers, who copied, deleted, added stuff that should not be there. The last argument that ‘some part of TF is genuine’ came into the scene not long ago. Missionaries didn’t know what to do with overwhelming Christian and non-Christian Scholars condemning the passage as an outright forgery. Their new argument was simple; they removed all the parts that were Christian like.

Removal of parts in the TF:

(1) if it be lawful to call him a man.
(2) For he was a doer of wonderful works.
(3) He was [the] Christ.
(4) for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him

This is what we will be left with, when the above four is deleted:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” [Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3]

The problem again as before, they do not provide any evidence how they came to conclusion that this what Josephus actually wrote. All this is mere guess-work. In order for missionaries to convince people the TF is genuine, they have to produce historical evidence that goes back before Eusebius. Origen whom I mentioned before, who used Josephus work widely never once came across any passage that mentions Jesus as the ‘Messiah’ or Christ being crucified. Actually in Origen’s work, he makes mention that Josephus did NOT believe Jesus was the Messiah. Here is what he wrote: “did not accept Jesus as Christ” [2] Isn’t the testimony from Origen enough proof that the whole passage, TF is a forgery? How can we believe that TF is genuine and say he is the ‘Messiah’, yet, Origen who wrote massively (using Josephus work) in defending Christianity says, Josephus did ‘not’ believe Jesus to be the Messiah. This evidence alone from Origen is enough to crush any desperate missionary in trying to defend the TF as genuine. I would like pseudo missionaries answer this question of mine. Since Origen makes mention in his work that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the messiah, where is Josephus statement what Origen has stated? Where is Josephus statement where he denies Jesus being the Messiah? This is another prove that Church fathers have deleted statements from Josephus work.

Scholarly evidences that the TF is an outright forgery

Professor Oskar Holtzmann who is a Christian, was born in 1859, he was a German theologian and a New Testament scholar. He goes in detail on Testimonium Flavianum, he writes:

“Origen must still have read something like this in his Josephus; for in two places he tells us that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah (Contra Celsum i. 47; cp. In Matth. X. 17). On the other hand, Eusebius already (Hist. Eccl., i. 11, and Dem. Evan., iii. 5, 105, 106) contains that passage about Jesus (Jos., Ant xviii. 63 f.)- now given all the MSS.- which, in view of its content and form CANNOT POSSIBLY BE GENUINE. If this section were indeed derived from Josephus, it would mean that he, a Jew, who everywhere steps forward as a champion of his Judaism, first called Jesus a wise man, and then added the hesitating qualification, ‘if indeed he may be called a man at all.’ The writer then proceeds to justify this qualifying clause by adding further, ‘for he was a performer of acts incredible’; though what those acts were he does not tell us. The same passage also goes on to say that Jesus was a teacher of such men as willingly accept the truth.
That is to say, Josephus here describes the nature and content of Jesus’ teaching by the simple term, ‘the truth’ (…..). Jesus drew to himself those who thirsted for the truth- SUCH A SENTENCE CAN ONLY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY ONE RECKONED HIMSELF TO BELONG TO THE COMMUNITY OF CHRIST. Again, it is said Jesus, in distinct contradiction to historical fact, ‘and many Jews, many also of the people of the Greeks, did he draw to himself.’ Josephus the historian, in describing the earthly Jesus, COULD NEVER HAVE MADE SUCH A STATEMENT as that contained in the second clause. But the account goes on to say of Jesus, ‘this man was the Messiah.’ IF JOSEPHUS HAD WRITTEN THUS, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONTENT TO DEVOTE ONLY ONE SHORT CHAPTER TO THE ACCOUNT OF JESUS’ LIFE; for we must remember that Josephus was a Jew and perfectly familiar with the Messianic belief. If he could have so written, Jesus must have been for him the man of men, the future lord of the world; at any rate, from this particular passage onwards the fate of Jesus must have seemed important for the whole future development of his narrative. But of this there is not the slightest trace. The only further passage in which Josephus makes mention of Jesus is that already cited (Ant., xx. 200). This circumstance, more than any other, PROVES THAT THE PASSAGE UNDER CONSIDERATION (XVIII. 63, 64) IS NOT GENUINE. This same passage then goes on to speak of the end of Jesus: ‘When the chief men amongst us had notified him unto Pilate, and Pilate had punished him with the death on the cross, those who had formerly loved him fell not away, for on the third day he appeared unto them again alive, as the holy prophets had foretold (and many other wonderful things also); and even down to this present time the Christian folk who are called after him have not ceased to be.’ Here, then, the whole body of Old Testament prophecy is referred to Jesus; this is the standpoint of a Christian. Nor is the expression ‘the Christian folk’ (….) appropriate in the mouth of one who is a Jew and wishes to remain so.
The word ….expresses really the idea of a common descent; it is precisely the characteristic element of the idea that was manifestly wanting in Christianity, made up as it was of an assemblage from all peoples. Christianity knows differently: to it all the members of the Christian community are children of God and brethren of Christ. Almost the only designation for the Christian community that was available for a Jew to use was the term ….. (Acts xxiv. 5, 14, xxviii. 22).
THUS THE PASSAGE ATTRIBUTED TO JOSEPHUS IS UNQUESTIONABLY SPURIOUS. And as there no inherent contradictions discernible in it, it would be a piece of pure arbitrariness to ATTEMPT TO PICK OUT GENUINE KERNEL FROM WAS IS AS A WHOLE SPURIOUS. On the contrary, we are obliged to hold that the text which we now have has supplanted another which was LESS AGREEABLE to the Christians of a later date. And the time when his substitution took place was no doubt the period between Origen and Eusebius. THE CHURCH, STRUGGLING AS SHE WAS AFTER POWER, DELETED FROM JOSEPHUS, AN AUTHOR BOTH WIDELY READ AND IN MANY RESPECTS SERVICEABLE TO HER, A PASSAGE WHICH WAS REPUGNANT TO HER, AND SUBSTITUTED FOR IT A TEXT WHICH FROM HER STANDPOINT WAS UNASSAILABLE, BUT WHICH, AS A MATTER OF FACT, IS IN NO SENSE COMPATIBLE WITH THE AUTHORSHIP OF JOSEPHUS.” [3]

Dutch Experts such as Dr. Henricus Oort who is Professor of Hebrew Antiquities, Dr. I. Hooykaas [was a Pastor in Rotterdam] and Dr. A. Keunen Professor of Theology At Leiden, wrote a book called: ‘The Bible for Learners’, all three them agree that the TF is not genuine, but inserted into the work of Josephus by ‘Christian hand’ later, they wrote:

“……for this knowledge we have hardly any sources but the four books with which the New Testament begins. No other authorities deserve to be mentioned by their side. Paul gives us a few general characteristics, and makes a few allusions in his letters, but this is all. He had never known Jesus personally. Flavius Josephus, the well-known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A.D. 37, only two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of the times in which Jesus and his disciples came forward, yetHE DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE EVER MENTIONED JESUS HIMSELF. At any rate, the passage in his ‘Jewish Antiquities’ that refers to him is certainly SPURIOUS, and was INSERTED BY A LATER AND A CHRISTIAN HAND.” [4]

Alexander Campbell who was a Bible teacher, Minister and a Leader in a Church also admits that the passage concerning Jesus from Josephus work is not original, but ‘spurious’:

“Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion.
Respecting the founder of his religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, AND AS THIS PASSAGE IS NOT QUOTED OR REFERRED TO TILL THE BEGINNING OF THE FOURTH CENTURY, IT IS, FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS GENERALLY ACCOUNTED SPURIOUS.” [5]

Leonhard Goppelt was born in the year 1911; he was a theologian and pastor in Germany. He writes:

“We would be very much inclined to ascribe special significance to non-Christian information about Jesus because of its ostensible lack of bias. Our expectations would be high, e.g., if the trial folios of Pilate should be discovered on a piece of papyrus. In all probability, however, such a discovery would lead to disappointment since they would offer only a sum of misunderstandings, much like the accounts of Plinius about the Christians.
Such is the confirmed the small number of extant non-Christian sources of information about Jesus from the 1st and 2nd centures. Among the Roman historians, Jesus is mentioned only once each by Tacitus and Suetonius. What they have to say about him ca. A.D, 110 has been taken from statements of Christians.
This fact is not astonishing at all since, after all, for the empire in this period, the activity of Jesus and his disciples was nothing more than a remote affair with hardly more than local significance. Conspicuous, however, is the fact that even Josephus, the Jewish historian of the epoch, is entirely or almost entirely silent on Jesus. THE TWO BRIEF REMARKS ABOUT HIM IN JOSEPHUS WORKS BEAR ALL THE MARKS OF EXTENSIVE CHRISTIAN EMENDATION, if they are not entirely interpolated. What is the reason for this silence? He was writing for a Hellenistic-Roman audience for one thing, and wished for this reason to avoid any identification of his movement with Judaism. It had, after all, fallen under suspicion in the entire Kingdom since Neronian persecution. The inner-Jewish, rabbinic tradition speaks only rarely and in veiled terms about Jesus or the Nazarenes. The references are so disguised and the information SO DISTORTED THAT ONE CAN HARDLY SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT JESUS OR THE CHRISTIANS AT ALL.”
Footnote 11 in the same page Leonhard Goppelt writes:

“Ant. 20.9.1 reported briefly that ‘a man James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ,’ was executed. This could have been genuine. In contrast, however, ANT 18.3.3 WAS SURELY INTERPOLATED: ‘About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.’ To what extent the interpolator used Josephus text as a source CANNOT BE DETERMINED. The places that mentioned Jesus in the Slavic text of the War are inauthentic.” [6]

Richard Brodhead Westbrook was born 1820 in Pike County, Pennsylvania. By 1839 he had obtained a license to preach. He remained a Methodist Episcopal preacher until 1852, but left the Methodist Church that year. Beginning in 1853 Westbrook served as a Presbyterian pastor in Burlington, NJ. Around the same time he was awarded an honorary Master of Arts (A.M.) degree from Princeton University. In 1854 he was serving as the secretary of the American Sunday School Union. Westbrook received another honorary degree, Doctor of Divinity (D.D.), in 1860 from Washington College (Maryland). Three years later (1863) he received a degree in law from New York University and admittance to the New York State Bar. [7] He is another Christian, thoroughly explaining and also saying that the TF is not original, but a ‘forgery’, he writes:

“The failure of Jewish writers of the first century to recognise Jesus of Nazareth, even in the most casual way, is significant fact. Philo, the celebrated writer of his day, was born about twenty years before the Christian era, and spent his time in philosophical studies at that centre of learning, Alexandria in Egypt. He labored diligently and wrote voluminously to reconcile the teachings of Plato with the writings of the Old Testament, and though in the prime and vigor of manhood when Jesus is said to have lived, and dwelling in the immediate vicinity of Judea, and in the very city where Christianity was early introduced, yet this learned, devout, and HONEST JEW MAKES NO MENTION OF JESUS OF NAZARETH.
Even more strange is the silence of Josephus, the Jewish Historian, who was born about A.D. 35, and lived and wrote extensively until after the destruction of Jerusalem, and yet he never mentioned the name of Jesus. THE CELEBRATED PASSAGE REGARDING CHRIST IS KNOWN TO BE A FORGERY, and the one respecting ‘James the brother of Jesus, called the Christ,’ is by no means worthy of confidence. It must be certain that in the first century of our era Jesus of Nazareth did not attract the attention of these fair distinguished Jewish writers, if he in fact existed.
In early times the name Jesus, as has been shown, was as common as the names John or James, and when the name is mentioned it is impossible to say who is referred to. Gibbon says: IT WAS FORGED BETWEEN THE TIME OF ORIGEN (A.D. 230) AND EUSEBIUS (A.D. 315). THE CREDIT OF THE FORGERY, HOWEVER IS GENERALLY GIVEN TO EUSEBIUS, WHO FIRST QUOTED IT. The distinguished authors of the Bible for learners distinctly state that Josephus never mentioned Jesus, and cite Josephus’s close following of the atrocious career of Herod up to the very last moments of his life, WITHOUT MENTIONING THE SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS, AS INDUBITABLE PROOF THAT JOSEPHUS KNEW NOTHING OF JESUS. The Rev. Dr. Giles, author of the Christian Records, adds to the reasons for rejecting the passage, as follows, “Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus and the style of his writings have no hesitation in condemning THIS PASSAGE AS A FORGERY INTERPOLATED IN THE TEXT DURING THE THIRD CENTURY BY SOME PIOUS CHRISTIAN, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the Gospels or of Christ their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well-known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion; and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it.
Oxley in his great work on Egypt says: “However, I have found in some papers that this discourse was not written by Josephus, but by on Caius, a presbyter.” Here, according to their own showing, what had passed for centuries as the work of Josephus WAS A FRAUD PERPETRATED BY A DIGNITARY OF THE CHURCH. This is in perfect keeping with ancient custom. In addition to all this, there is not original manuscript of Josephus in existence…………
ANOTHER FORGED REFERENCE TO CHRIST IS FOUND IN THE ANTIQUITIES, BOOK XX. CHAPTER IX. SECTION 1, WHERE JOSEPHUS IS MADE TO SPEAK OF JAMES, “THE BROTHER OF JESUS, WHO WAS CALLED CHRIST.” Some theologians who reject the longer reference to Jesus accept this as genuine. But they do it without reconciling the discrepancies between the stories regarding the end of this same James. According to this passage, James was put to death under the order of high priest. But according to Hegesippus, a converted Jew who wrote history of the Christian church about A.D. 170, James was killed in a tumult, not by sentence of a court. Clement of Alexandria confirms this, and is quoted by Eusebius accordingly. Eusebius also quotes the line from Josephus without noticing that the two do not agree. The statement is quoted in various ways in early writers, and the conclusion is irresistible that the copies of Josephus were tampered with by copyists.” [8]

In light of the evidences I have presented from Christians scholars, Josephus statement on Jesus is a forgery, it was most certainly not written by him, which is a fact. The offender who is most likely to have inserted it into Josephus work, mentioned by some of the experts is Eusebius. He was the first person to have quoted it, as I mentioned earlier many Church fathers used Josephus work extensively, yet not one them came across such a passage. 

Examining Sanhedrin 47a, on Jesus Crucifixion

Another interesting passage Christian missionaries love to cite that Jesus was put to death, is Sanhedrin 43a. They assume that the Yeshu (Jesus) that is mentioned in the passage is the same Jesus from the New Testament. There are however many problems which Christian Apologists won’t be able to solve, if they still try to argue that the passage is talking about Yeshu (Jesus) of the New Testament. The passage in question is certainly not referring to the same Jesus of the Gospels. Reasons are very simple: The person who is mentioned in Sanhedrin 43a is a different Jesus to the one from the Gospels, this Jesus lived at the time of King Yannai that is well over 100 years before the Jesus of the Gospels was born.

Yeshu (Jesus) was a student of a Rabbi Yeshoshua ben Perahia (Sotah 47a). There is mention of NO teacher that Jesus had, in the four Gospels. Rabbi Yeshoshua ben Perahia (Sotah 47a) most certainly did NOT live at the time of Jesus, of the Gospels. Historical evidence shows that he lived at the time of King Yannai, which is well over 100 years before Jesus was born. Let’s read Sanhedrin 47a, it says:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu
34 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!
35 — Ulla retorted: ‘Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence Dilling Exhibit 47 Begins could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?
36 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].’ Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God?
37 Thereupon they retorted; Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish.
38 When Nakai was brought in he said to them; Shall Nakai be executed? It is not written, Naki [the innocent] and the righteous slay thou not?
39 Yes, was the answer, Nakai shall be executed, since it is written, in secret places does Naki
40 [the innocent] slay.
41 When Nezer was brought in, he said; Shall Nezer be executed? Is it not written, And Nezer [a twig] shall grow forth out of his roots.
42 Yes, they said, Nezer shall be executed, since it is written, But thou art cast forth away from thy grave like Nezer [an abhorred offshoot].
43 When Buni was brought in, he said: Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni [my son], my first born?
44 Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed, since it is written, Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first born.
45 And when Todah was brought in, he said to them; Shall Todah be executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah [thanksgiving]?
46 Yes, they answered, Todah shall be executed…… [9]

The above passage from the Talmud does not only say this Yeshu was hanged, but he had a teacher, his name was ‘Yeshoshua ben Perahia’. Another thing, it also mentions that this Yeshu had five disciples who got executed. Question to pseudo missionaries, how can this passage be referring to the same Jesus of the Gospels, when we know Jesus had way more disciples than what is mentioned in Sanhedrin 47a? Where in the Gospels does it ever mention anything about five of Jesus disciples bring murdered with him? Mark Allan Powell (Ph.D Union Theological Seminary) is the Robert and Phyllis Leatherman Professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary, he writes:

“Scholars debate whether there may be obscure references to Jesus in some of the collections of ancient Jewish writings, such as the Talmud, the Tosefta, the targums, and the Midrasim. Occasional polemical comments in these writings are sometimes thought to be veiled references to Jesus, but since he is not mentioned by name, no one knows for sure. The text that is most often accepted as referring to him comes from Babylonian Talmud. The main problem is here that the materials that make up this work were collected over a long period of time, finally coming together around 500-600 C.E. Thus, there is NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW EARLY (OR RELAIBLE) the references may be…….
Later this same text also says. ‘Jesus had five disciples: Mattai, Maqai, Metser, Buni, and Todah.’ THIS OF COURSE IS NEITHER THE TRADITIONAL LIST OF NAMES NOR THE TRADITIONAL NUMBER.” [10]

Talmud Sanhedrin 107b and Sotah 47a make mention that Rabbi Yehoshua fled to Egypt, but in Sotah 47a there is no mention of Jesus. Interesting thing, both of the passages mentioned from the Talmud says, Rabbi Yehoshua fled because of King Yannai (or jannaeus), this was well over a century before Jesus of the Gospel was born. Here is what is said:
What of R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah?
When John [Hyrcanus] the king killed the rabbis, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah [and Yeshu] went to Alexandria of Egypt. When there was peace, Shimon Ben Shetach sent to him “From me [Jerusalem] the holy city to you Alexandria of Egypt. My husband remains in your midst and I sit forsaken.”
[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] left and arrived at a particular inn and they showed him great respect. He said: How beautiful is this inn [Achsania, which also means innkeeper].
[Yeshu] said: Rabbi, she has narrow eyes.
[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] said to him: Wicked one, this is how you engage yourself?
[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] sent out four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him.
[Yeshu] came before [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] many times and said: Accept me. But [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] paid him no attention.
One day [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] was reciting Shema [during which one may not be interrupted]. [Yeshu] came before him. He was going to accept [Yeshu] and signalled to [Yeshu] with his hand. [Yeshu] thought that [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] was repelling him. He went, hung a brick, and bowed down to it.
[Yeshu] said to [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah]: You taught me that anyone who sins and causes others to sin is not given the opportunity to repent.
And the master said: Yeshu {the Notzri} practiced magic and deceive and led Israel astray. [11]

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus), Yannai (or Alexander Jannaeus ) was king of Judea from 103 BC to 76 BC. This is a century before Jesus of the New Testament was born. How can this passage be talking about the Jesus of the New Testament, when these incidents occurred a century before Jesus was born? All this evidence presented by me proves that the references mentioned by Christians from the Talmud, could not be the same person it’s speaking about.

Here is Rabbi Boteach who makes it clear that this Jesus (Yeshu) is not the same person from Gospels. He writes:

“To be sure, there is a famous Talmudic citation that says that the high Jewish court condemned Jesus to death (Sanhedrin 43a). But the Jesus it is referring to cannot be the founder of Christianity. In the Talmud there is more than one Yeshu (Jesus). A case in point is where the Talmud says that Jesus if Nazareth was a student of Yeshoshua ben Perahia (Sotah 47a), a sage who died at least 100 years before the Jesus of the New Testament was born. More importantly, whoever this ‘Yeshu’ is, it most certainly is not Jesus of the New Testament because the narrative of their deaths is completely different. There is no Roman involvement, no crucifixion, and a number of students are put to death with this Yeshu, something that does NOT happen in the New Testament.” [12]

Conclusion: I believe all the evidence I have presented from Academics has thoroughly debunked Josephus’s TF as being genuine. I went in detail explaining and bringing Christian Professors who also acknowledged and thoroughly exposed the TF as an out-right forgery. Them sincere Christian Professors also made mention that the TF is a work of a Christian hand; it could not possibly be from Josephus, who was a devout Jew, a Pharisee. I also went over the citation in Sanhedrin 47a, which was assumed by Christian missionaries, strong evidence that it referred to Jesus. However as I have gone over the passage in detail, the verse could not talk about Jesus of the Gospels. As you would have read already the evidence presented, this Yeshu who was hanged, lived 100 years before the Jesus of the New Testament. Another evidence that the passage in Sanhedrin 47a was not the same Jesus of the Gospels, is how the Talmud Sanhedrin 107b and Sotah 47 state that Rabbi Yeshoshua ben Perahia fled to Egypt because of King Yannai, as stated before King Yannai lived one century before Jesus of the Gospels. It seems clear by now all the supposed sources Christians have used, that it is to do with Jesus of NT, is forgery or as in the case of the Talmud, it referred to a completely different Yeshu who lived a century before Jesus of the Gospels. All in all I believe I have presented enough evidence that there is no mention of Jesus of the  New Testament in any early Jewish source.


[1] [Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3
[2] [Vol. IX, Origen on Matthew, Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, Book X by Origen, translated by John Patrick Chapter 17 –http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_IX/Origen_on_Matthew/Origen%27s_Commentary_on_Matthew/Book_X/Chapter_17 ]
[3] The life of Jesus (1904) Professor Oskar Holtzmann D.D. Translated by J.t. Bealby, B.A. And Maurice A. Canney, M.A. [London Adam and Charles Black 1904] page 15 – 16
[4] The Bible for Learners. By Dr. Henricus Oort [Professor of Hebrew Antiquities At Leiden] and Dr. I. Hooykaas [Pastor At Rotterdam] with the Assistance of Dr. A. Keunen [Professor of Theology At Leiden] – [Boston: Roberts Brothers 1879] Volume 3 page 27
[5] Debate on the evidences of Christianity; containing an examination of the social system, and of all the systems of scepticism of ancient and modern times, held in the city of Cincinnati, for eight days successively, between Robert Owen and Alexander Campbell. With an appendix by the parties (1839) Page 300
[6] The Ministry of Jesus in Its Theological Significance By Leonhard Goppelt Volume 1 [Copy Right 1981] page 18 – 19
[7] http://dla.library.upenn.edu/dla/pacscl/ead.pdf?id=PACSCL_WFIS_93003WFIS93003
[8] The eliminator; or, Skeleton keys to sacerdotal secrets By Richard Brodhead Westbrook, D. D., LL.D [Printed for the Author By J.B Lippincott Company, Philadelphia. 1894] Page 198 – 203
[9] http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html
[10] Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee [Copy Right 1998] By Mark Allan Powell page 34
[11] http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_47.html
[12] A Jewish Philosophy of History: Israel’s Degradation & Redemption By Paul Eidelberg page 282

examing Jewish sources on Jesus Crucifixion

Mary worshipped as a God?

The article Below was Originally Posted from this website – Link:


It is common among Christians (missionaries) to say: – “the Quran got the Trinity wrong.” Hence they assume that the Trinity that is mentioned in the Quran speaks of Mary as part of the Christian Trinity. What they do not perceive, no where in the Quranic verses they cite, does it even indicate Mary of being part of the Trinity, as we will investigate shortly.  What I will do in this article is, cite as many references from Christians that Mary was indeed God by certain Christians and she was part of the Trinity. I will also respond to all the passages missionaries use as evidence against the Quran. Let’s now read the verses they use as proof that the Quran says ‘Mary is part of the Trinity’:

Quran 5:116 – And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?’” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

From this passage Christians think it speaks about the Trinity, but they are wrong. If they read the verse from start to end they will NOT find the word “Trinity” in the passage. I will cite references shortly that Mary indeed was believed to be part of the Trinity, by some Christian sects. Another passage they use as proof that the Quran got the Trinity wrong is:

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

Again the above verse does not say anything about Mary being part of the Trinity. If anybody reads the passage carefully, it is clear that the verse is mainly speaking of Jesus. The name of Mary is used, because Allah is elucidating, making Christians ponder that Jesus son of Mary was only a messenger of God, and through His (God’s) command he (Jesus) became a created being that was born in the womb of Mary. Then after that, Allah says: “say not Trinity” (or Three). It is quite clear that the verse does not say anything about Mary being part of the Trinity. So, the Quran is not wrong, it is the missionaries who are lying and distorting the Quranic verses who are wrong.

 The Quran does speak about the Trinity somewhere else, but says nothing about Mary being part of the Trinity. Here is the verse:

Quran 5:73 –
 “They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.”

As you have read the above passage it speaks about the Trinity, but does not mention anything about, Mary being part of the Trinity.

Another thing critics (Missionaries) love citing for chapter 4 verse 171, is classic commentaries such as Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, by that they conclude the Quran is a false book and not from God, since they believe the Trinity consists of “the Father, Son and Mary.” Nowhere in the verse (Quran 4:71) does it indicate that the Trinity consists of, “the Father, Son and Mary.” Even if we agree with what some of the commentators like: Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs said, it will not refute anything. The Scholars made that comment, because they were referring to some Christian heretics who believed that Trinity doctrine consisted of the “Father, the Son and Mary.” Another thing if you read their exegesis, nowhere will you see them mention that this belief was believed by ALL Christians. There is vast amount evidence from the Church Fathers that, there was a certain sect in Arabia that believed the Trinity consisted of: “Father, the Son and Virgin Mary.” Let’s read the evidence for this:

1. George Sale
“This notion of the divinity of the virgin Mary was also believed by some at the council of Nice, who said there two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were thence named Mariamites. Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified; which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition in calling her the compliment of the Trinity, as if it were imperfect with her. This foolish imagination is justly condemned in the Koran as idolatrous….” [1]

2. Reverend Gilbert Reid D.D.
“As to Christianity as it was represented in Arabia, it was not a clear untarnished theism, but tritheism. The Heavenly Father, Mary the mother of God and Jesus their son, were WORSHIPPED as three Gods, and their images appeared in the churches along with the images of other saints. Christianity as taught by Christ had lost its identity in the formalism and errors of the church of Arabia. Still more the truths pro-claimed by God through all the ages had been lost sight amid the vain imaginings of men’s hearts. The only God of, an omnipresent spirit, without form or body. The reformation of Mohammed was thus a return to the first and second commandment of the Prophet Moses, which Jesus himself had taught.” [2]

3. Washington Irving
“The Mariamites, or worshippers of Mary, regarded the Trinity as consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Virgin Mary. The Collydrians were a sect of Arabian Christians, composed chiefly of females. They worshipped the Virgin Mary as possessed of divinity…..” [3]

4. English theologian Theophilus Lindsey writes: 
“The followers of Christ had been for some ages quarrelling and destroying each other in their heat’s and disputes, not concerning the Supreme Father of all, to whom they paid little attention; but about the nature of Christ. And of the Holy Spirit, and many other objects of worship, which they invented. (t) The notion of the divinity of the Virgin Mary was believed by some even at the council of Nice: who said there were two gods besides the Father, viz. Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were thence names Mariamites. Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified: which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition, in calling her the complement of the Trinity….” [4]

5. William Cook Taylor
“In Arabia itself some of the worst heresies were propagated: the chief of these were the heresies of the Ebonites, the Nazareans, and the Collydrians, the last of which derived its name from the collyris, or twisted cake offered by them to the Virgin Mary, whom they worshipped as a deity. It is known to all readers of ecclesiastical history that a sect called Mariamites exalted the Virgin to a participation in the Godhead, and that writers of the Romish Church have named her the ‘complement of the Trinity.’….” [5]

6. John Holmes
“….Jacobites, so called from Jacobus, Bishop of Edessa in Syria, and whose doctrine, directly contrary to that of the Nestorians in one point, denied the double nature of Christ in his state of incarnation: Mariamites, so called because they worshipped the Virgin Mary, and regarded her as, along with the Father, and the Son one of the persons of the Divine Trinity…. “[6]

7. John Henry Blunt D.D. :
“In Accordance with which are the statements of certain writers, logically in agreement with the worship they advocate, that St. Mary has been assumed into the Trinity, so as to make it a quaternity, that Mary is the ‘compliment of the Trinity.’” [7]

8. Allan Freer
Nestorians, so called from their founder, Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople and whose heresy consisted in a recondite distinction between Jesus the man, and Christ the God-man; Jacobites, so-called from Jacobus, Bishop of Edessa in Syria, and whose doctrine directly contrary to that of the Nestorians in one point, denied the double nature of Christ in his state of incarnation: Mariamites, so-called because they worshipped the virgin Mary, and regarded her as, along with the Father and the Son, One of the persons of the divine Trinity: and collydrians, a sect guilty of similar heresy, and deriving their name from their practice of offering to the virgin Mary a particular kind of cake, called Collyris.[8]

9. John William Draper
In the east, in consequence of the policy of the court of Constantinople, the Church had been torn in pieces by contentions and schisms. Among a countless host of disputants may be mentioned Arians, Basilidians, Carpocritains, Collydrians, Eutychians, Gnostics, Jacobites, Marcionites, Marionites, Nestorians, Sabellians, Vallentians. Of these the Marionites regarded the Trinity as consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Virgin Mary; the Collydrians worshipped the Virgin as a divinity, offering her sacrifices of cakes…. [9]

We can see from all the references quoted, that Mary was indeed believed to be part of the Trinity, by certain Christian sects of Arabia.

Question: “why does the Quran in chapter 5 verse 116 state Mary is a God?”


Well it is obvious the Quran is in dialectic discussion with the native Arabs of the time, when it was first revealed. The Quran naturally responds to ideas and teachings of people had at that time. So the Quran is correcting their error in worshipping Mary and bringing them back to the path of worshipping God as One and none else besides Him i.e. no worship of Mary or Jesus. The Quran also makes it abundantly clear that Jesus never told people any of this. Allah is asking Jesus on the day of judgement “did you tell people to worship You and your Mother as Gods?” In the presence of the people, to bring them to judgement. It will be obvious that Jesus won’t accept any responsibility as he is NOT the one who commanded such thing.

Question: ’Was Virgin Mary worshipped as a God’? Yes she was. Here is more academic sources that attest to this:

1. Reverend Henry Adelbert Thomson (Cincinnati, Ohio)
It is plain that the tendency to sail with the popular wind, which existed in church dignitaries of that age as well as in this, easily prevailed on many who held ecclesiastical office, so that they approved or winked at beliefs and practices which more independent clergymen considered erroneous. The people carried the clergy along with them. Even the fearless and powerful Augustine, and with him such strenuous men as John Chrysostom and two Gregories of Nazianzen and Nyssa, were unable to stem the tide in some matters of which were disapproved. The worship of Mary and the Saints met the popular mood and pleased the popular fancy; so the great leaders. Confronted by an enthusiasm they were really powerless to curb, endeavoured to the point out and maintain a distinction between latreia and douleia. But, once having given way, even partially, to the prevailing opinion, these same great men were afterward quoted as conservators and expounders of the tradition which, through them, thus received the more impressive authority….. the pure Christian doctrine had led to veneration of Saints; the adoration of the feminine ideal, together with the peculiar relationship of Mary to Christ, had designated her as “Queen of Saints;”….. the practice of Mariolatry gained a tremendous impulse, along with the Worship of Saints, especially in the post Nicene period….. the Church was still more effectually darkened and its doctrine debased. In such a period those elements of the Faith which almost readily lent themselves to idolatry suffered most in purity and gained most in practice. Saints, relics, images, with Mary, as Queen of Heaven, at their head, almost completely absorbed the worship of the people. [10]

2. Ernst Benz
The virgin birth entered into creeds of all Christendom and became one of the strongest motifs in the liturgy and worship of the early Church. Veneration of the mother of God took a tremdous leap from the moment Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire and the pagan masses began pouring into the Church. For thousands of years the religious mentality of the peoples of the Mediterranean basin and near East had been shaped by the cult of the great Mother Goddess and Divine Virgin. From the ancient popular religions of Babylonian Ishtar to the mystery religions of the late Hellenistic age the great Goddess had been worshipped under a variety of forms. The peoples who had practiced her cult could not easily adjust to the sole dominance of the Father God and to the strictly patriarchal structure of Judaic religiosity, which had been taken over by the early Christians. This ancient tradition sought a new mode of expression within the Christian Church and found it in adoration of the Virginal Mother of God in whom the mysterious union of the divine Logos with human nature had been accomplished…. In Egypt the veneration of Mary began very early. Origen, the Alexandrian father of the Church, employed the term theotokos- God bearer in the third century. The second council of Ephesus gave its sanction to this title. The second council of Constantinople added the epithet ever-lasting Virgin.” The prayers and hymns of the Orthodox Church invoke the name of the Mother of God as often as the names of Christ and the Holy Trinity. A god example of such homage is found in the Eucharistic liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, at the conclusion of the great intercessory prayer: “Truly worthy is it to praise Thee God bearer, eternally blessed and perfectly irreproachable Mother of our God, who art more worthy of honor than the cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the seraphim, who intact, hast borne the Divine Logos-Thee the true Mother of God, we Praise.”[11]

3. Professor of the New Testament Beverly Roberts Gaventa writes:
“Orthodox theologians insist Mary is deserving of this grace, and it is for that reason that she is identified as Panhagia, or All Holy. From birth she is without sin. Her own holiness and her divine maternity warrant the high veneration given to her by the Church. Mary is “the first of all humanity to have attained, through the complete transfiguration of her being, that to which every creature is summoned. She has already transcended the boundary between time and eternity and now finds herself in the Kingdom which the Church awaits with the second coming of Christ.” Because of Mary’s own holiness, she stands in solidarity with the sanctified humanity who constitute with the Church. For those reasons, Orthodox Christian tradition icons and hymns praise Mary at ‘the centre of the Saints as a representation of the worshipping and praying community.’”[12]

4. Professor James R. Adair
“….the highest veneration was given to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Historically Marian veneration can be connected with the controversies over the use of the term theotokos, rejected by Nestorius but accepted by most Christians of the day. The veneration of Mary was especially popular among the common people and the Monks, particularly in the EAST.” [13]

5. Reverend James Gardner
“Mariolatry, the worship of the Virgin Mary. In the fourth century, in consequence of prevalence of the ascetic spirit, the most extravagant opinions began to be entertained of the merit of virginity, and Mary, the mother of our blessed Lord, was venerated as the ideal of the celibate life. About this time an opinion arose that there were in the temple of Jerusalem virgins consecrated to God, among whom Mary grew up in vows of perpetual Virginity. In the end of the fourth, it became customary to apply to Mary the appellation, “Mother of God.” …the worshippers of Mary prevailed, and in the fifth century images of the Virgin were placed in the Churches holding the infant Jesus in her arms. Once introduced, this species of worship spread rapidly, and Mary became a conspicuous object of veneration in the Churches, both of the East and West. .. towards the close of the tenth century the custom became prevalent among the Latins, of celebrating masses, and abstaining from flesh on Saturdays, in honour of Mary. About the same time the daily office of St. Mary, which the Latins call lesser office, was introduced, and it was afterwards confirmed by Pope Urban II. In the council of Clement. The Rosary also came into use, consisting of fifteen repetitions of the Lord’s prayer, and one hundred salutations of St. Mary; and the Crown of St. Mary, as it was called by the Latins consisted of six or seven repetitions of the Lord’s prayer, and sixty or seventy salutations according to the age ascribed by different authors to the Holy Virgin. Mariolatry now became an established doctrine and practice in the Church of Rome, and down to the present day has continued to occupy a very spicuous place in her ritual; while with equal intensity Mary receives the worship of Oriental Church under the name of Panagia, or All-Holy….” [14]

6. German Professor Johann Heinrich Kurtz
….the Collydrians- a female sect in Arabia dating from the fourth century- who offered to her bread-cakes (in imitation of the heathen worship of ceres). Epiphanius, who opposed that sect, maintained:…. On the Antidicomarianites, comp. 92. But during the Nestorian controversy Mariolatry became again more general in the Church. In the fifth century, the 25th march was celebrated as the Feast of the Annunciation…… [15]

7. Church of England Magazine
I will next give you a quotation from the Psalter of St. Bonaventura, which was published at Rome in 1834 with the sanction of the master of the so-called apostolical palace and his deputy. This at least is authorized. Its compiler was made a saint of the Roman Church: “in thee, O lady, have I put my trust; I shall not be confounded for ever: receive me into thy favour. … Thou art my strength and my refuge, my consolatation and my defence. …. Into thine hands, O lady I commend my spirit, all my life, and my last day” (Ps. Xxx.). the Te Deum was parodied by the same writer; and they who use his devotional books are taught thus to address the Virgin Mary; “We praise thee, the mother of God; All earth doth worship thee, the spouse of the eternal Father. To thee all angels ad archangels, to thee thrones and principalities, humbly do service. …. Praise becometh thee, empire becometh thee: to thee be virtue (or power) and glory forever and ever. Amen”. These extracts are quite sufficient to prove that acts of worship are paid to the Virgin Mary, with the sanction and approbation of your church….. this practice, so dishonouring to God, began towards the latter part of the fourth century. It was devised by the Collyridians, who “worshipped the blessed Virgin as a goddess, and judged it necessary to appease her anger and seek her favour and protection, by libatations, sacrifices, and oblations of cakes (collyridiane), such like services. …… the ancient father, Epiphanius, condemned the Collyridians for believing that the blessed Virgin was God; and hence he tells them: ‘The body of Mary was truly holy, but not a god.’… [16]

8. Reverend John Dowling
When we observe, on the one hand, the earnest manner in which these fathers contend for perpetual virginity of Mary, and on the other hand the extravagant honors attached to the virgin state, we need not be surprised that the notion soon became prevalent among some that ‘ the mother of God.’ As she was now frequently denominated, was herself worthy of the honors of divine worship. Accordingly, about this time, we find that a sect sprang up, whose peculiar tenet it was, that the Virgin Mary should be adored in worship, and that religious honors should be paid to her. They were called Collyridians, from collyridae, the cakes which they offered to the virgin…… [17]

9. Church of England quarterly review
The first persons upon record, as offering divine honours to the Virgin Mary, were the Collyridians, who derived their names from the…, or certain cakes, which they offered annually to Saint Mary, in sacrifice upon her festival, when they worshipped her as a goddess. This superstition came from Thrace, and the yet more distant regions of Scythia and Arabia…… [18]

10. Professor of the New Testament studies Amy-Jill Levine writes:
“There are even stronger hints that Mary was venerated as a goddess. By the fourth century, Epiphanius (315-403 CE) was ordering the faithful not to worship Mary but only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, suggesting that such activity had been transpiring for a while.” [19]

11. Professor of religious studies Gail Paterson Corrington:
“It would certainly not have been surprising if the Christian women of Egypt had found another divine mother with whom to identify; the Christian women of Arabia, to Epiphanius’s consternation, did a similar thing in their worship of Mary rather than Jesus… The cakes (kollybas) offered by the Collyridians to Mary in the worship are described in a way similar to the cakes offered Isis as the queen of heaven….” [20]

12. Mary Walsh
“The first council’s decision was approved, and Mary was the theotokos, ‘The Mother of God.’ This date, A.D. 431, marks the time when Mary was in the ascendancy, and her veneration and worship began. …. About the middle of the fourth century, according to Jerome, Augistine, Gregory, Epiphanius, and others, teachings came in regarding Virgins who had taken the vows of sanctity and chastity and who devoted their lives to the service of the temple at Jerusalem. Among these virgins was Mary, who had consecrated her life to God by taking the vow of perpetual virginity. It was declared that her marriage to Joseph was formal, and that she continued a virgin until her death. This was the new teaching, and it caused long debated arguments as to whether Mary was actually was a perpetual virgin. The other phrase of the new teaching was that Mary was the ‘Mother of God’ and was therefore entitled to devotion and honor. These extravagant honors conferred on Mary led to the development of a sect called Collyridian, derived from the word collyridae, the cakes which were offered to the Virgin. This sect regards Mary as worthy of divine worship. Thus the floodgates were opened for the beatification of the Virgin.” [21]

13. Thomas Anthony Trollope
Collyridians, from Greek word signifying a piece of bread or cake in a cylindrical form; a sect of Christians, who arose towards the conclusion of the fourth century, and, together with another sect, called the Antidico-Marianites, filled all Arabia with controversies and disorder. These latter maintained that the Virgin Mary did not preserve immaculate state after the birth of Christ, in jospeh autem mariti sui concubitu adhuc indulgebat. The Collyridians, on contrary, who are said to have chiefly consisted of women, worshipped the Virgin as a goddess, and sought favours by libations, sacrifices, and oblations of cakes. [22]

14. Professor Maxwell E. Johnson
“Epiphanuis of Salamis (315-403 CE), according to his witness, not only was there in existence an anti-marian group called the Antidicomarianites, who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity, but also an EXTREME pro-marian group, known as the Conllydrians (from cakes), a group compromised mostly of women who worshipped Mary as a goddess, offered her and then consumed small cakes, and had a female priesthood…..” [23]

15. German Protestant theologian and Church historian Phillip Schaff also makes mention that Mary was worshipped:
“Epiphanius, in his seventy-eighth heresy, combats the advocates of the opposite view in Arabia toward the end of fourth century (367), as heretics under the title of Antidiomarianites, opposer’s of the dignity of Mary i.e., of her perpetual virginity. But, on the other hand, he condemns, in the seventy-ninth heresy, the contemporaneous sect of the Collyridians in Arabia, a set of fanatical women, who, as priestesses rendered divine Worship to Mary…..”[24]

16. Reverend George William D. Evans
The religious worship now paid to the virgin seems clearly deducible from that which was paid to the female deities of old. How reluctantly the converts from heathenism bade adieu to that sex as objects of worship, is evident from heretical opinions held by the sect of the Collydrians- a sect which arose towards the close of the fourth century, and offered up cakes (collyridae) to the Virgin Mary, as a goddess, and the Queen of heaven…..[25]

17. Erich Fromm
“In the Nestorian controversy a decision against Nestorius was reached in 431 that Mary was not only the mother of Christ but also the mother of God, and at the end of the fourth century there arose a cult of Mary, and men addressed prayers to her. About the same time the representation of Mary in the plastic arts also began to play a great and ever-increasing role. The succeeding centuries attached more and more significance to the mother of God, and her worship became more exuberant and more general. Altars were erected to her, and her pictures were shown everywhere.” [26]

18. English historian Edward Gibbon writes:
“The Christians of the Seventh century had insensibly relapsed into a semblance of paganism: their public and private vows were addressed to the relics and images that disgraced the temples of the East: the throne of the Almighty was darkened by a cloud of martyrs, and saints, and angels, the objects of popular veneration; and the Collydrian heretics, who flourished in the fruitful soil of Arabia, invested the Virgin Mary with the name and honors of a goddess. The mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation appear to contradict the principle of the Divine unity. In their obvious sense, they introduce three equal deities, and transform the man Jesus into the substance of the Son of God: and orthodox commentary will satisfy only a believing mind: intemperate curiosity and zeal had torn the veil of the sanctuary; and each of the Oriental sects was eager to confess that all, except themselves, deserved the reproach of Idolatry and Polytheism. The Creed of Mahomet is free from suspicion or ambiguity; and the Koran is a glorious testimony to the unity of God. The Prophet of Mecca rejected the worship of idols and men, of stars and planets, on the rational principle that whatever rises must set, that whatever is born must die, that whatever is corruptible must decay and perish.” [27]

We can conclude that the Quran nowhere does say that “Mary is part of the Trinity.” I refuted the critics attacks on the Scholars (commentators of the Quran), they also NEVER said, “Mary is believed by ALL Christians to be part of the Trinity.” Their views were based on certain sects of Arabia, which believed Mary is part of the Triune formula. I also referenced two dozen or more quotes from Christian experts, that Virgin Mary indeed was worshipped and she was part of the Trinity. I believe everything I have presented is in my favour that the Quran is not wrong in responding to the Christians of that time, hence the people who are wrong and lying are the cunning missionaries, who are desperate to say anything to degrade Islam.


[1] George Sale, The Koran translation and Notes (2007), page 27
[2] Gilbert Reid The Biblical World > Volume. 48, Number. 1, Page 12
[3] Washington Irving Mohammed [Edition published 2007 by Wordsworth Editions] Page 47
[4] Theophilus Lindsey An Examination of Mr. Robinson of Cambridge’s Plea for the Divinity of Our Jesus Christ [London: Printed for J. Johnson, No. 72 St. Paul’s Church-Yard] page 124
[5] William Cooke Taylor Readings in Biography: A Selection of the Lives of Eminent Men of All Nations [The second Edition. London: John W. Parker, West Strand. (1899)] Page 192
[6] The Eclectic Magazine: Foreign Literature science and Art. [September to December 1850.] Volume 21 By John Holmes Agnew, Walter Hilliard Bidwell page 40
[7] Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology edited by John Henry Blunt page 441
[8] Allan Freer: The North British Review [Febraury 1850 – August 1850. Volume 13, Page 197
[9] John William Draper: History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science page 78 – 79 [New York : D. Appleton and company 1875]
[10] Henry Adelbert Thompson The Catholic Cultus of the Virgin Mary The American Journal of Theology: Volume. 10, No. 3, Page 480 – 484
[11] Ernst Benz The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its Thought and Life, page 61 – 62
[12] Beverly Roberts Gaventa Mary: Glimpses of the Mother of Jesus page 15 -16
[13] James R. Adair, Introducing Christianity Page 207
[14] Reverend James Gardner, The faiths of the world : an account of all religions and religious sects, their doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs (1858) Volume 6, page 372 – 373
[15] German Professor Johann Heinrich Kurtz History of the Christian Church to the Reformation page 223
[16] The Church of England Magazine Under The Superintendence of Clergymen of the United Church of England and Ireland, Volume 30, January to June 1851 page 364
[17] Reverend John Dowling The History of Romanism: from the Earliest Corruptions of Christianity to the present time [sixth edition 1845] Page 82
[18] The Church of England quarterly review, volume 9 page 172 [London: William Edward Painter, 342 strand]
[19] A Feminist Companion to Mariology edited by Amy-Jill Levine, Maria Mayo Robbins page 173
[20] Gail Paterson Corrington Her Image of Salvation: Female Saviors and Formative Christianity page 96 – 97
[21] Mary Walsh Bible Lessons For Catholics [Copy right 2002, Published by TEACH services, INC.] Page 70 – 71
[22] Thomas Anthony Trollope An encyclopædia ecclesiastica; or, A complete history of the Church page 403
[23] Maxwell E. Johnson Praying and believing In early Christianity page 83
[24] Phillip Schaff History of the Christian Church, Volume 3
[25] Reverend George William D. Evans The classic and connoisseur in Italy and Sicily, with an appendix: volume 2 page 59 (1835)
[26] Erich Fromm. The Dogma of Christ: And Other Essays on Religion, Psychology and Culture page 62 – 63
[27] [Edward Gibbon. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Volume 6 page 249 [Philadelphia 1816]


Mary worshipped as a God

Mary worshiped as a God


Does Deuteronomy 21:10-14 condemn rape or does it sanction rape-forced marriage?

The article Below was Originally Posted from this website – Link:

The answer to the above is that, Yahweh does not condemn rape, but actually encourages/allows rape-forced marriage. The above passage mentioned is thrown around by Evangelists, according to them this passage gave captives a right, they were not allowed to be mistreated i.e., they were not allowed to be raped. However it is evident from this passage (Deuteronomy 21:10-14) and other verses from the Bible, that Moses on a number of occasions encouraged his men to capture virgins for their own pleasure-to rape them. Let’s now look at the passage they cite as evidence that Yahweh condemned rape. The passage reads as:

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Expanded Bible (EXB)
10 When you go to war against your enemies, the Lord will •help you defeat them [give them into your hands] so you will take them captive. 11 If you see a beautiful woman among the captives and are attracted to [desire; fall in love with] her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home, where she must shave her head and cut her nails 13 and change the clothes she was wearing when you captured her. After she has lived in your house and cried for her •parents [L father and her mother] for a month, you may marry her. You will be her husband, and she will be your wife. 14 But if you are not pleased with her, you must let her go anywhere she wants. You must not sell her for money or make her a slave, because you have taken away her honor [humiliated; exploited her].
The command from Yahweh to soldiers, whoever goes out to war and he sees a woman, if he is attracted to her, he can “TAKE” the woman and force her to marry him after one month of mourning. Does that sound anything like this passage forbids rape? The word ‘Take’ is in itself evidence that the woman was taken without her consent i.e., she was forced. Verse 14 makes it even more evident by the words:- “because you have •taken away her honor [humiliated; exploited her]”, in other words you raped her, you have humiliated her enough, just let her go if you like to, not what she wants, but what the man desires. There was no consent involved, all the man had to do is wait one month, so he can be sure that she is not pregnant and after that, he could do what he wills, and the woman had no choice in the matter. Missionaries must be living in fairyland for them to try bring this verse as a defence that woman were not allowed to be raped according to the Bible. There are dodgy Bible translations for the above passage, so to make things extra clear that the verse allows rape and not forbid it. We have to look and see what the word ‘take’ in Hebrew means, when used in Deuteronomy 21:10-14. The word that is used for verse 11 ‘take’, in Hebrew is laqach (or lakakh):

Hebrew word lakakh

Let’s see what the Hebrew word ‘Laqach’ (לָקַח ) means:
I. to take, get, fetch, lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away
A. (Qal)
i. to take, take in the hand
ii. to take and carry along
iii. to take from, take out of, take, carry away, take away
iv. to take to or for a person, procure, get, take possession of, select, choose, take in marriage, receive, accept
v. to take up or upon, put upon
vi. to fetch
vii. to take, lead, conduct
viii. to take, capture, seize
ix. to take, carry off
x. to take (vengeance) [1]
Notice the Hebrew word ‘Laqach’ means:- ‘lay hold of’, ‘seize’, ‘snatch’. According to the above definitions for the word, the passage Christians cite as defence that the Bible forbids rape actually backfires on missionaries. As we have read so far, the verse is clear that the soldier when taking a woman in war as a captive, he took it by ‘force’, there was no consent. The passage itself nowhere says that the woman agreed to be taken, to be the soldier’s wife. Let’s read further evidence that is passage is about rape-forced marriage.

One of the best known Bible Translations is the ‘Good News Translation’. The passage, Deuteronomy 21:10-14 translated from Hebrew to English, reads as:
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
10 “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 Take her to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.
What I been discussing all along that the passage is about rape-forced marriage, GNT agrees and makes it plain in verse 14 that the soldier forced to have sex with the captive woman. From the words:- “Since you forced her to have intercourse with you”, it is clear that this is the clearest example that the Bible encourages forced marriage-rape. Let’s show even more evidences from Scholars that the passage is about forced marriage-rape. Let’s now bring more evidences, this time for verse 14 that the word translated in English Bible translations ‘humiliated’ is Anah’ which means rape, i.e. the soldier humiliated her by having forced sex with the woman.

hebrew word anah

According to the Book: ‘The International Standard Bible Encloypedia’, the Hebrew word ‘Anah’ means:
1. OT.-A. As a verb. 1. Sexual Intercourse. Heb. ‘ana’ is used in Gen. 34:2 of Shechem’s rape of Dinah. Ezekiel condemns the men of Jerusalem who ‘humble’ (ana) women ‘unclean in their impurity’ (22:10). The verb is thus a euphemism for sexual intercourse (cf. Dt. 21:14; 22:24, 29) and is frequently equivalent to rape (Jgs. 19:24; 20:5; 2S. 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam. 5:11). [2]
Biblical Scholar K. Renato Lings also echoes the same words as the previous statement on the word ‘Anah’, he writes:
“The verb ‘anah’ is deployed in some parts of the HB to describe seduction, sexual assault, or rape-like scenarios. On account of its primary meaning ‘oppress’ or ‘humiliate’, sexual aggression is regarded as an act of humiliation. In genesis 34:2, for instance, Shechem saw Jacob’s daughter Dinah and took her, lay with her and ‘humiliated’ or ‘debased’ her.” [3]
Notice how the Hebrew word ‘anah’ is ‘equivalent to rape’ or how Biblical scholar K..Renato Lings states that the word ‘anah’ is deployed in the Holy Bible for “sexual assault, or rape-like scenarios.”

Conclusion: It is abundantly clear from the evidences shown that Deuteronomy 21:10-14 encourages rape, and it clearly does not condemn rape. The evidence presented so far, has totally debunked the fanciful thinking by Christian Apologists about the passage giving captives rights i.e. they were not allowed to be raped. The word ‘humiliated’ in vast majority of Bible translations, meant that the man sexually forced himself upon the woman. The man raped her.


[1] On the word Laqach http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3947&t=KJV
[2] The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J Volume 2 [Copy Right 1982] edited by Geoffrey W. Bromile page 775
[3] Love Lost in Translation: Homosexuality and the Bible By K. Renato Lings page 464

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 rape forced marriage

Bible: Does Numbers 31:18 sanction pre-pubescent marriages (child marriage)?

The article Below was Originally Posted from this website – Link:


Before one of our brothers or sisters get into conclusion, thinking this is an article bashing Judaic-Christian faith, this is not true. The main reason I took to task to write this article, is in response to some individuals who are of Judaic-Christian faith, who constantly bash, twist Islamic scripture claiming that the Quran somehow sanctions ‘Prepubescent marriages’. This is a lie, far from the truth. I will address this fictitious claim very soon, God willing. It is only right to write this article and give these individuals (missionaries), who spread lies about Islam, a taste of their own medicine. Let’s see what their Holy Bible, God breathed scripture have to say on pre-pubescent marriages. Does the Bible sanction pre-pubescent marriages or is it forbidden? We shall find out shortly.

Webster’s Bible Translation Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones (taph), and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children (taph), that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

In order for me to go further on the verse, let’s first show the part where the Hebrew word ‘taph’ is used in verse 17 and 18 for chapter 31 of Numbers that, it only refers pre-pubescent girls and boys. Below is the text in Hebrew for Numbers 31: 17-18

Hebrew word taph (or taf), pre-pubescent

What does the word ‘taph’ (or taf) in verse 17 and 18 for chapter 31 of Numbers mean? According to Webster’s Bible translation it means ‘children’ or ‘little ones’, meaning pre-pubescent girls or boys. Hebrew lexicons on the word ‘taph’:

Professor Selig Newman:
Child , an infant … טַף… an offspring,… get with-……[1]

Karl Feyerabend:
טַף (taf) ., i.p. .., w.s…. coll. Children, little ones. [2]

Samuel Pike
טַף little ones or children… mincing in a childish manner, Isai. Iii. 16. –… to drop, or distil… to prophecy, or distil instruction, Micah ii. 6, 11 [3]

English – Hebrew Lexicons commenting on the word ‘taph’, the word only refers to children or infants. As we have got this out of the way and made plain that the verse is referring only to children (pre-pubescent) and not grown up girls. Let’s now read the verse again to get a better understanding that it sanctions child marriage:

Webster’s Bible Translation Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones (taph), and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children (taph), that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

As you start reading from verse 17, the verse begins by Moses commanding the soldiers to execute all the male children (infants), and all the women who have slept with a man, in other words woman who are not virgin. When we get to the next verse (verse 18), Moses tells the soldiers that they can take for themselves all the female children. Why would the male children be not shown any mercy, get executed but the female children left alive? It is obvious from the words:- “for yourselves”, Moses meant that they can have the female children for their own pleasure, to cohabit with. When I started investigating Numbers 31:17-18, reading the Hebrew words for verse 18 at the end, one word was left un-explained. This is not the case of just one English Bible translation; all the modern Bible translations have blatantly crossed out the word. The word I am referring to is ‘lakhem’ (or lacham), this word is left unexplained. This same word (lacham) is used in many other passages such as: Exd 1:10, Deu 1:41, Jos 10:5, Jdg 1:8, 1Sa 31:1, 1Ki 12:24, Isa 19:2, in all these verses mentioned, when the Hebrew word ‘lacham’ is used , it means:- ‘fight’, ‘fought’, or ‘warred’. Here is Hebrew text for the mentioned passage:

Hebrew word laqach or lakakh, meaning, fight, warred, fought, sexually, sexual

You can see I have circled in red, where the word ‘lacham’ is used in them verses. If you go to any Judaic-Christian website, where they give definitions for any word from the Bible, they have always left the word ‘lacham’ unexplained for Numbers 31:18. Usually when I do research on certain words which are disputed from Biblical verses, I visit these sites such as; Blueletterbible.org, biblestudytools.com, and they have always given an explanation in detail, what a word means. But when I started examining Numbers 31:18, what caught my eye was the word ‘lacham’, it was left blank. What made it even strange is, I was not allowed (able) to click on the word, to see what the meaning of the word is. I have many Scholars who agree, that Numbers 31:18 is referred to sexually and there is no doubt about it. First in line of experts, who gives their view is Shaye J. D. Cohen who is a renowned Professor, he writes:
“Moses enjoins upon the returning warriors to kill their Midianite female captives who have lain with a man, but ‘spare for yourselves every young woman who has not had carnal relations with a man’; WE MAY BE SURE THAT ‘FOR YOURSELVES’ MEANS THAT THE WARRIORS MAY ‘USE’ THEIR VIRGIN CAPTIVES SEXUALLY.52 The law in numbers differs from the law in Deuteronomy- perhaps the most significant distinction is that the law in Deuteronomy does not care whether the captive is a virgin or not- but it too permits Israelite warrior to marry (or ‘marry) a foreign woman.”

In the same page, in footnote 52, Professor Shaye J.D. Cohen goes further on Numbers 31:18, he writes:
“I do not know why the new Jewish version omits ‘for yourselves’; the Hebrew lakhem is unambiguous. That the intent of ‘FOR YOURSELVES’ IS SEXUAL OR MATRIMONIAL IS OBVIOUS; the passage is correctly understood by Rabbi Simeon Yohai in the Sifrei ad loc (177 212H).” [4]

If you remember earlier I commented that the word ‘lakhem’ was left out blank without any definition, the professor highlighted this. We can see the deceit of missionaries trying hard to cover up the truth. Thankfully we have sincere Scholars as Shaye J.D. Cohen. The other thing I also pointed out is the word ‘lakhem’ can only referred to sexually, Professor Shaye Cohen also highlighted this and made it clear that the word can only mean ‘sexual’ or ‘matrimonial’. Either way the passage we have examined refers to pre-pubescent girls being married to fully grown man.

Wil Gafney, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and is an Episcopal Priest canonically resident in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. She is another line of Scholars who comments on Numbers 31:18, she writes:
“The ‘one woman, one man’ relationship of Eve and Adam becomes one man and two women in Genesis 4:19, ONE MAN AND AN UNTOLD NUMBER OF PREPUBESCENT GIRL CAPTIVES IN NUMBER 31:18 and in several other texts. IT APPEARS THAT GOD HAS LEFT IT TO HUMANITY TO DECIDE WHO ARE APPROPRIATE INTIMATE PARTNERS AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES. The evolution of polygamy, both CONSENSUAL AND FORCED, as a human-initiated cultural practice in the scriptures is particularly striking because of God’s lack of condemnation of it (not to mention, according to Deuteronomy, God’s sanction of abduction or rape-marriage during armed conflicts).
When inviting individuals and their descendants into eternal covenant relationships with God, God never required that the matriarchs and patriarchs revert to an Eve-Adam, monogamous pairing.” [5]

Notice Professor Wil brings up Numbers 31:18 and at the same time she writes:- “God has left it to humanity to decide who are appropriate intimate partners and under what circumstances.” She was referring to the pre-pubescent girls, in other words, she is saying God left it to humanity to decide whether it is ok to cohabit with a pre-pubescent girls or not. Yahweh did not forbid it. Actually as you have read so far, he sanctioned it in Numbers 31:18 for men to marry pre-pubescent girls.

Another Professor by the name Miguel A. De La Torre, mentions that Numbers 31:18 found Biblical justification of raping female slaves and that it was considered ordained by God, by Christian slave owners of the past, he writes:
“The Bible was masterfully used by those in power to justify the owning of black bodies. This was an easy feat; nowhere in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament is slavery categorically condemned. The supporters of slavery in the antebellum south were the ones who had the biblical chapters and verses to quote to justify their way of life. The abolitionists were hard pressed to find any biblical passage that outright condemned the institution of slavery. EVEN THE RAPE OF FEMALE SLAVES FOUND BIBLICAL JUSTIFICATION AND WAS CONSIDERED TO BE ORDAINED BY GOD. SPECIFICALLY, NUMBERS 31:18 INSTRUCTS CONQUERORS AS FOLLOWS: ‘YOU SHALL KEEP ALIVE ALL YOUNG FEMALES WHO HAVE NOT HAD SEX WITH A MALE FOR YOURSELVES.’ [6]

The Popular Commentary by Paul E. Kretzmann
“v. 18. But all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves, as slaves or handmaids, FOR MARRIAGE WITH SUCH WAS NOT FORBIDDEN. The great God is terrible in His judgments, a fact which should teach us to fear His wrath and not act contrary to His commandments.” [7]

Even the Bible commentator Paul E. Kretzmann, makes it clear, commenting on Numbers 31:18, that marriage with the pre-pubescent females ‘was not forbidden’.

Dr Judith E. McKinlay also mentions that the Bible ‘seems’ at times to turn a blind eye and allow ‘free romance’ commenting on Numbers 31:18. In other words what she is saying is that Yahweh was not against grown man cohabiting with female children:
“Where the texts have a concern for the circumcised status, this clearly does not apply to women! And where there is a concern for lineage the importance of patrilineal descent meant a lesser concern regarding the potential mothers. So, in the war against Midian, Moses says to the people in Num 31.18 that of the captured Midian women, ‘all the young women who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves’. AT TIMES IT SEEMS AS IF THE BIBLE WANTS TO TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE MATTER ALTOGETHER AND ALLOW FREE ROMANCE A FREE HAND.” [8]

Further evidence, the following law from the Bible commands that when females are captured in war, that soldiers can take (by force) home ,if the man likes her:

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
10 “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 Take her to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.

According to the above passage, when victory is given to YHWH’s soldiers and they take captives and if the soldiers see a nice looking (beautiful) female, the soldier can ‘TAKE’ her to his own home. The soldier has to shave her head and cut her fingernails, and also she has to stay in his house for one month, after which the man can force her to be his wife. Then the husband can go into her by raping her, as the last words are clearly laid out: “Since you forced her to have intercourse with you”.

We have read that the waiting period for a captive female, this command is to any female whether she is virgin, non-virgin, prepubescent, the waiting period is one month only. After which the man can marry the female child and cohabit with her. There is no mention of YHWH saying anything that there has to be longer waiting periods for girls who are pre-pubescent. The command does not exist. So we can see from the vast amount evidence presented already that YHWH did indeed sanction pre-pubescent marriages.

For more information on this passage (Deuteronomy 21:10-14), read the following article I have written recently:


Missionary objection against Numbers 31:18

One of the fictitious arguments raised against Numbers 31:18 by Evangelists is that they say ‘it does not sanction Child marriage’, they cite this passage:

Ezekiel 16 New International Version (NIV)
Jerusalem as an Adulterous Wife
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, confront Jerusalem with her detestable practices3 and say, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says to Jerusalem: Your ancestry and birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. 4 On the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths. 5 No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised.
6 “‘Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, “Live!” 7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown, yet you were stark naked.
8 “‘Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your naked body. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine.

According to the above passage cited by missionaries, they say that God ‘forbids pre-pubescent marriages’.

Questions for missionaries:

1. Nowhere in the above verse does it say ‘that you are forbidden from marrying pre-pubescent females’, where does it say that you are forbidden from marrying pre-pubescent girls, where is the verse that abrogates Numbers 31:18 explicitly?
2. How does Ezekiel 16:1-8 A PARABLE (not a command) override (abrogate) the laws of the Torah, when in two places: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and Numbers 31: 18 explicitly state that you can take, marry female captives by force?
3. How is Ezekiel in anyway relevant to Moses and his soldiers, when Ezekiel was born nearly 700 years after Moses? Ezekiel did not even exist when Moses and his soldiers were raping, marrying pre-pubescent females.

More Scholarly evidences on pre-pubescent marriages

The following quotations I am going to present are all from my other article, click on the link for more info:

Jacob Neusner is an American academic scholar of Judaism. In the Book: ‘The Comparative Hermeneutics of Rabbinic Judaism: Seder Tohorot. Tohorot through Uqsin.’ The Jewish oral Torah“i.e. Mishnah says:
M. 5:4 A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And they are laible on her account because of the law [Prohibiting intercourse with] a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her [when she is menstruating] to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer. [If] she was married to a priest, she eats heave offering. [If] one of those who are unfit [for marriage] has intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into priesthood. [If] one of all those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility.”

A Commentary on the above verse, in the Book: ‘A history of the Mishnaic Law of Purities. 15. Niddah, by Jacob Neusner, it says:
M. 5:4-5 bring us to the next stage in the matter of the legal status of children, female and male. The girl three years and one day old is deemed capable of sexual relations, which accounts for A, B, and C. D. Presumably should not be apply to M. 5:3-a; if the girl is unclean as a menstruant but is incapable of sexual relations, one who has (or attempts) relations with her is not made unclean as is one who has had sexual relations with a menstruant. E simply goes over familiar ground; since the girl can be acquired as a wife, she also may eat heave-offering. F. Follows, and G. Repeats what is already obvious. But H limits the matter. The girl is not held responsible in a matter of forbidden sexual relations. I is a minor gloss. If the girl is less than three years and one day old, we do not regard the sexual relationship as of legal consequence. The theory is that the tokens of Virginity are restored before that time but not afterword.

Pay close attention to the above statements, how Scholar Jacob Neusner says that a female of three year old ‘could be deemed capable of sexual relations.’ And in the first quotation he says that the Mishnah approves that a man could have sexual relations with a betrothed girl when she is only just three years old.

Professor of Sociology Mary De Young writes:
“The possession of Children by their parents was also given religious sanction in the teachings of both the Talmud and the Bible. Rush (1880) states that the Talmud teaches that a girl of ‘three years and one day’ could be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse.”

Even Professor Geza Vermes who is a well known and highly respected scholar comments that Pre-pubescent marriages were allowed:
“…the Greek parthenos could also mean that the girl was young and/or unmarried. In fact, in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament parthenos was used to render three distinct Hebrew words, ‘Virgin’, ‘girl’ and ‘young woman’. Already Rabbis in the Tannaitic era (first to second century ad) subscribed to further nuances, and there is no reason to think that all these were invented by them. Even the word betulah, which normally means virgo intact, when used by them could carry the laternal sense of bodily immaturity with the consequential inability to conceive. In Rabbinic terminology this type of virginity in a woman ceased with the physical onset of puberty. The Mishnah, the oldest of the rabbinic codes, defines a virgin as a female who ‘has never seen blood even though she is married’ (mNiddah 1:4). The Tosefta, another early Jewish code of law, claims in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (late first century ad) that such a woman would continue to count as a virgin even after she had conceived and borne children without prior menstruation (tNiddah 1:6)! To understand these statements, we must remember that in the InterTestamental and early rabbinic age, pre-puberty marriage was generally permitted. In fact rabbis seriously debated whether bloodstains found after the wedding night in nuptial bed of a minor, i.e. a ‘virgin in respect of menstruation’, marked her first period or the consummation of the marriage.”

Reverend Kathryn J. Riss who is a Christian also makes mention that in first century parents married off their daughters who were pre-pubescent to much older men. What is interesting is she does not mention once that Rabbis or anyone higher up in authority speaking against such marriages:
“The longest New Testament passage on marriage is found, not in Ephesians, but in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. In stark contrast to the legal positions and social expectations of the first century, here the rights and responsibilities of man and woman are upheld as equal. Although marriages were arranged by parents, who often espoused their pre-pubescent daughters to much OLDER MEN….”

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 8 edited by three great Scholars: G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry says:
“One might counter that the expression mohar habbetulot (Ex. 22:16[17]) refers rather to the pretium virginitatis. In this case, the mohar would be compensation to the girl for the loss of her virginity. This explanation, however, is unacceptable, since it proceeds on the assumption that the term betula means ‘virgin.’ This may doubtlessly be the case in many passages, but in joel 1:8, betula thus refers to a married woman who had been ‘possessed’ by her husband (ba’al); betula thus refers to a marriageable girl who was physically able to cope with a man, ‘taking her into his possession.’ Here the term betula says nothing about her virginity. Ex.22:16 (17) (kesep yisqol kemohar hab betulot) can thus be translated ‘he shall weigh out as much silver as is required for marriageable girls.’ In this context we should point out that ancient Hebrew custom did not associate marriageability with puberty. In contrast to the marriageable girl (betula), the…. Alma refers to a girl in puberty capable of conception. Girls could in fact already be given marriage long before actual physical maturity, perhaps even as young as five years old (cf. Lev. 27:5), and it did happen that marriages were already consummated with prepubescent girls.”

Notice how all these Jewish and Christian experts agree that pre-pubescent marriages were approved of in ancient Israel and as the in the Mishnah it encouraged men to sleep with 3 year old girls. We must remember that the Bible in it encourages/approves of pre-pubescent marriages.

We can conclude by that the Bible encourages pre-pubescent marriages with females. I even cited Deuteronomy 21:10-14 as proof that Yahweh encouraged his men to marry female captives by force, whether the girls were pre-pubescent or not, it didn’t matter. I also cited Scholarly references that agreed that, Numbers 31:18 is about marriage with pre-pubescent girls, the scholars agreed that the passage is referred to sexually. What I mean is, when the words in Numbers 31:18 are used as ‘keep alive for YOURSELVES’, this meant that soldiers can keep alive the female pre-pubescent for their own pleasure. Furthermore I went over one objection raised by Evangelist, it was of no value whatsoever, the passage cited nowhere condemned pre-pubescent marriages. Why I say it was of ‘no value’, because Ezekiel was born 700 years after Moses. Last but not least I cited many scholarly quotes that agreed that pre-pubescent marriages was sanctioned and was practiced among Jews and Christians. We know historically among Jews and Christians in Ancient times that, pre-pubescent marriages was a norm. Question to the hatemonger’s who spout lies on Islam: Why is there not one verse in the Old Testament or the four Gospels that explicitly condemns Numbers 31:18? Why did Jesus not speak against pre-pubescent marriages?

[1] An English and Hebrew lexicon composed after Johnson’s directory, containing fifteen thousand English words, rendered into Biblical, or rabbinical Hebrew, or into Chaldee. To which is annexed a list of English and Hebrew words the expressions and meanings of which appear to be the same in both languages (1832). By Professor Selig Newman page 61
[2] A complete Hebrew-English pocket-dictionary to the Old Testament (1905]) By Karl Feyerabend page 118
[3] A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon, Adapted to the English Language, and Composed upon A New and Commodious Plan [Second Edition (1811)] by Samuel Pike page 59
[4] The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties By Shaye J. D. Cohen [chapter 8] page 255 – 256
[5] Christian Holiness and Human Sexuality: A Study Guide for Episcopalians [Chapter 2 Scripture: Sexuality and Sexual Orientation] Professor WIL GAFNEY
[6] A Lily Among the Thorns: Imagining a New Christian Sexuality [Copy Right 2007] By Miguel A. De La Torre page 45
[7] The Popular Commentary by Paul E. Kretzmann http://www.studylight.org/com/kpc/view.cgi?bk=3&ch=31http://www.kretzmannproject.org/PENT/NUM/NUM_31.htm
[8] Reframing Her: Biblical Women in Postcolonial Focus [Copy Right 2004] By Judith E. McKinlay page 27

Bible child marriage, numbers 31:18

Daniel 7:13-14 Messiah, Jesus worshipped as a God?

The article Below was Originally Posted from this website – Link:

I believe if God was indeed going to send the Messiah and that he would be “God-Incarnate” there surely has to be at-least few passages that speak about such prophecy, isn’t it right? I think I am being fair, I am not asking for  a lot, just a few verses. Any ways today’s favourite verse Christians love to use is Daniel 7:13-14, according to these Trinitarian Jesus-worshippers that verse proves the deity of Jesus and that He should be “worshipped.” Now here is a problem we have is the verse does NOT say the person should be worshipped. According to Trinitarian’s because the word “פלח” (Pelach) is used then that proves the deity of Jesus. They say: “the word פלח (Pelach) is for God alone and has never been used for other humans.” As we will investigate later you will know the word פלח (Pelach) is used for others beside God, saints, ministers etc. Here is the verse:

New International Version (©2011) Daniel 13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and Peoples of every language worshiped (Pelach or Pelakh) him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Now the above translation is wrong. Why do they translate “Pelach” for a human being as “worshipped?” That is just distorting the text. The majority of translations translate “Pelach” as “serve.” A better translation is below:

English Standard Version (©2001) Daniel 7:14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Does “Obeying” Jesus make him God? Majority of Bible Translations even the famous KJV render the word “serve” for Daniel 7:14. Since when is “serving” someone make the person God? Now here is a typical Missionary response, they will say something along the lines:- “Hold on a minute the word פלח (Pelach) is only used for God alone.”

Daniel 7:14 reads as follows:

American King James Version Daniel 7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Hebrew Lexicons on the word פלח pĕlach

The main word Christians use as evidence that Jesus is God is the word “serve” (פלח pĕlach) and according to them the Hebrew word  פלח (pĕlach) is for God alone and no on else and thus according to the Trinitarian’s the verse proves the deity of Jesus. Now I have an objection to that, according to Hebrew/Aramaic language the word פלח (pĕlach) has various meanings and is NOT used for God alone. See the following Scholars, see what they have to say on the word:

1. Hebrew-English Lexicon
פלח (Pelach) ch., served, worshipped.[1]

2. Brown Francis says:
פלח vb. Cleave (Ar… cleave; Aram. Pelach (usu.),… are til work, serve.[2]
So notice how Brown Francis translated the word פלח (Pelach) as “til work, serve” he does NOT mention nothing about worship.

3. John Parkhurst elucidates on the word פלח (Pelach):
i. To cleave, cut, or split. Occ. 2 k. Iv. 39. Job xvi. 13. Psal. Cxli. 7. Prov. Vii. 23. As a N. פלח A piece split off, a fragment, a slice. Occ Jud. Ix. 53. 1 Sam. Xxx. 12. 2 Sam. Xi. 21. Cant. Iv. 3. Job xli. 15. Like the nether פלח mill-stone, so-called either from breaking the corn in pieces of stone.
ii Pelach In a hip. Sense To cast or fling off with violence, as it were a splinter in cleaving wood (comp. Psal. Cxli 7.), to split off. Occ Job xxxix 3.
iii. Chald. Pelach to serveOR worship. Dan. Iii. 12, 28. Vi 16, et al. [3]

Reading above quotes it is quite clear that the scholars that translated the word “pelach”, according to them it does not only mean “worship” but it also has many other meanings such as “till work, serve, cut, cleave and split.”

Christian Scholars commenting on Daniel 7:13-14

It is unfortunate to tell the Trinitarian’s once again that the passage (Daniel 7:13-14) has nothing to do with the future Prophecy of the Messiah. How do we know that? Well all Christians have to do is read chapter 7 from verse 1 to verse 28 and they well realise the “Son of Man” is talking about the “Holy Saints.” Check out the following Christian scholars who have explained Daniel 7:13-14 and according to them it is to do with the “Holy Saints” NOT the Messiah:

1. Jame L. Mays says:
“It seems clear here that the one to whom was given dominion and glory and kingdom… and his kingdoms one that shall not be destroyed (7:14 rsv) is a human being namely, the Saints of the Most High (vv.18,22,27). That identification emerges in the exposition of the dream that Daniel receives from one of the heavenly court. The interpreter assures this community through the writer of the Book of Daniel that in a very short time- a time, two times, and half a time (v.25) – the dominion would be taken from the hands of the tyrant and given to the Saints to rule forever and ever. In short these people are the wave of the future and the future is at hand.”[4]

2. Arstein quotes Stedeul from his book “The time of Salvation”-: “Whatever difficulties exist with the redactional stages of this chapter in the Book of Daniel and however complicated the problem of the intended meaning of ’like a (son of) man’ v. 13 could be, one finding certain: the interpretation of the vision, Dn 7,18 speaks about a final and everlasting kingdom which will be given to ‘the saints of the Most high.’ In v. 21.22 the same group is called ‘the Saints’, in v.28 “the people of the saints of the Most high.’ They hall receive and retain forever the kingly power (v. 18.20), judgement (v. 22) and sovereignty, the greatness of all kingdoms under heaven shall be given to them, and all sovereignties shall SERVE and obey THEM (v.27). [5]

3. Arthur Samuel Peake’s commentary
“13. Like into a son of man: the AV was wrong in translating ‘like unto son of man,’ and thus suggesting that the passage referred to the ‘son of man’ of the Gospels. The phrase simply denotes a figure in human form. There is no reference to the Messiah. In the interpretation of the vision in 18, this phrase has no place at all. The kingdom that is here given unto ‘one like unto a son of man’ is in 18 given to ‘the saints of the Most High.’” [6]

As you have read all the quotes from their own Christians Scholars, they have made it abundantly clear that the passage in no way does it refer to Jesus (Messiah). All three of the Christians have stated explicitly that the verse is reference to the “Holy Saints.”

The “Holy Saints” receive “Pelach”:

It is very well known that Missionary’s job is to lie and deceive people to spread their propaganda to convert people to their ideology. Daniel 7:27 is very clear that the saints receive “Pelach” but the New Translations of the Bible have twisted the verse and made it out that Jesus is the one who is receiving this “service” not the Saints. Let’s now expose their deceit how they twist Daniel 7:27:

New International Version (©2011) Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’

New Living Translation (©2007) Then the sovereignty, power, and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be given to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will last forever, and all rulers will serve and obey him.“

We see from the above passage that the “Kingdom under heaven” will be handed over to the “Holy people” i.e the “saints.” At the end of the verse, desperate Trinitarian Scholars have added the word ”him.” to make it out to the uneducated person that the passage is indeed referring to the Messiah and thus he should receive “pelach.” Now here is problem, if we take a closer look in the Hebrew TEXT the word “him” is not even in there, it is not even part of the text. Daniel 7 verse 27 ends with the words “and all rulers will serve and obey” and STOP. So if we just take a look at the verse without the word “Him” added by the Missionaries, it is crystal clear that the ones who will receive “Pelach” just like Daniel 7:14 is the “Saints.”

Here is a picture, word for word from a Christian website for Daniel 7:27 and see if the word “Him” is in the passage:

daniel 7 27 pelach  [7]

If you read all the way to the end  of verse 27 in the picture, you will realise in the original Hebrew TEXT the word “Him” is not there.

“Holy Saints” receive Worship (Pelach):

This is next section I will show a list of different Bible Translations that agree that Daniel 7:27 the “Holy saints” are the ones who will receive “Pelach” and look out for the word “them” at the end of each different Bible Translation:

Christian Bible Translations:

The Bishop’s Bible (1568) Daniel 7: 27 And the kingdom and dominion, & the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of high saints, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all powers shall serve and obey it.

Concordant Version of the Old Testament Daniel 7:27 And the Kingdom and the jurisdiction and the majesty of the kingdom under the entire heavens will be granted to the people of the saints of the supremacies. Their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all other authorities shall serve and hearken to them.

New Century version Daniel 7:27 – Then the holy people who belong to the Most High God will have the power to rule. They will rule over all the kingdoms under heaven with power and greatness, and their power to rule will last forever. People from all the other kingdoms will respect and serve them.’

The Message Daniel 7:27 – Then the royal rule and the authority and the glory of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the people of the High God. Their royal rule will last forever. All other rulers will serve and obey them.’

English revised version Daniel 7:27 – Then God’s special people will rule the kingdom. And they will rule over all the people from all the kingdoms of earth. This kingdom will last forever. And people from all the other kingdoms will respect and serve them.’

God’s word Translation Daniel 7:27 – The kingdom, along with the power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven, will be given to the holy people of the Most High. Their kingdom is eternal. All other powers will serve and obey them.”

So we see from the above Bible Translations, the “Holy Saints” are the ones who will receive “Pelach.” I got a question: if the person in Daniel 7:14 receives “Pelach” and thus make him automatically God, what about the Saints that receive the same thing in verse 27, are they all Gods?

Montogomery James Alan Christian Scholar says:

“Note;inf. V.27 the people of the saints are the object of this SERVICE”[8]

Notice how James Alan says the people in verse 27 do receive this “service” (pelach).

“Holy Saints” will be given Authority & rule forever:

The hard-headed Missionary’s will say: “what about verse 14:- “He was given authority, glory and sovereign power…His rule is eternal–it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed.”

That still does NOT make the person God, if we use the same Christian logic what about the Saints who will be given authority and reign forever just like verse 14? How can the person that is “GIVEN AUTHORITY” be God? If the person is given that authority and  GIVEN the Kingdom, that means the person at the first place never owned it and the person is subservient and under God’s authority. Check out the following verses:

Daniel 7:18
 “But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever-yes, for ever and ever.’“

Daniel 7:22 “until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgement in favour of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.”

Daniel 7:27 “And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’“

Conclusion: The evidence I have presented is quite overwhelming, thoroughly refutes the idea Trinitarian’s hold on to that the passage somehow refers to the Messiah and being worshipped. A) Daniel 7:13-14 does not prove Jesus’s deity. B) That the passage does not refer to the Messiah (Jesus) but the saints , this is according to the 3 Christian Scholars I quoted. C) Pelach (serve) is not exclusively for God alone, but used for the “Holy saints” as well and thus again refuting the idea that a Human being deserves “worship.”


[1] London, S. Bagster & sons limited; New York, J. Pott & co Hebrew English Lexicon (1898) page 210
[2] Brown, Francis, 1849-1916; Robinson, Edward, 1794-1863; Driver, S. R. (Samuel Rolles), 1846-1914; Briggs, Charles A. (Charles Augustus), 1841-1913; Gesenius, Wilhelm, 1786-1842. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: with and appendix containing the Biblical Aramiac (1906) page 812
[3] Parkhurst, John, 1728-1797 An Hebrew and English Lexicon Page 549
[4] Jame L Mays, Harper collins Bible commentary page 630
[5] Ǻrstein Justnes. The time of salvation. Page 164
[6] Arthur Samuel Peake. A Commentary on the Bible page 529
[8] Montgomery, James A. (James Alan), 1866-1949 A Critical and exegetical commentary on the book of Daniel (1927) Page 304

1 Timothy 3:16 Did God become manifest in flesh?

The article Below was Originally Posted from this website – Link:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) 1 Timothy 3: 16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Although the above verse reads as “God was manifest in flesh”, majority of Trinitarian Bible Translations, read it as: “He was manifest in flesh.” A lot of Scholars agree that the word “God” was not in the original text, but was added by later scribes. The earliest and best manuscripts does not have the word “God” in it but rather “He who” or “which.” Furthermore even the modern (Trinitarian) Bible Translations disagree with the KJV and few other translations for putting the word “God” in 1 Timothy 3: 16. Let’s now show what the other  Bible Translations put for 1 Timothy 3:16;


1. American Standard Version 1901
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh.

2. Common English Bible
Without question, the mystery of godliness is great: HE was revealed as a human.

3. Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
Great beyond all question is the formerly hidden truth underlying our faith: He was manifested physically and proved righteous spiritually

4. Douay-Rheims 1899
And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh,

5. English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh.

6. NET Bible (©2006)
And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He was revealed in the flesh.

7. Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh.

8. Good News Translation (GNT)
No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: He appeared in human form.

9. Lexham English Bible (LEB)
And most certainly, great is the mystery of godliness: Who was revealed in the flesh,

He appeared in a human body, was proved right by the invisible Spirit

11. Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
And this Mystery of Righteousness is truly great, which was revealed in the flesh and was justified in The Spirit

12. New Century version
He was shown to us in a human body.

13. Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
And undeniably great is the mystery of godliness, who was revealed in flesh.

14. Revised Standard version
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh

15. Douay-Rheims
And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh.

16. New English Translation (NET)
And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He was revealed in the flesh.

17. New International Version (NIV)
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh.

18. New International Version – UK (NIVUK)
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh.

19. New American Standard Bible
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh.

20. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh.

21. English Standard Version
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh

22. Revised Version 1881
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh.

23. The Voice (VOICE)
And I think you will agree that the mystery of godliness is great: He was revealed in the flesh.

So we see from the above Trinitarian Bible translations all agreeing that the word “God” is not in there. This alone should once and for all refute the KJV translation totally. Because there are some hard-headed Trinitarian’s who will still insist that 1 Timothy 3: 16 in KJV is right and other Christian translations are wrong. We will go further now and show more evidence to refute.

Greek Manuscripts that have not got the word “God” (Theos) in it:

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892)

Wescott and Hort

Brooke  F. Wescott & Fenton J. Hort Greek Manuscript

Constantin von Tischendorf

Constantin von Tischendorf

Constantin von Tischendorf Greek Manuscript

Notice how Westcott, Fenton and Tischendorf three well-respected Scholars, when they read the original Codex Alexandrinus for 1 Timothy 3:16 they did not see the word “God” in it, instead they seen the Greek word ὃς which means “he or who.”

So how come these other Translations below have the word “God” and not “He, who, which” in it? You have to see and find out next what the Scholars have to say.

Corrupt Translations

—-King James Bible
—-Darby Bible Translation
—-Webster’s Bible Translation
—-World English Bible
—-Young’s Literal Translation

Well now let’s hand this over to the experts. Let’s see if the above Translations are right in inserting the word “God” instead of “He, who” or “which.”

1. John Albert Bengel
“Theos of the rec. Text has none of the oldest MSS. In its favour, no version as early as the seventh century: and as to the fathers, ex. Gr. Cyril of Alex. And Chrysostom, quoted for theos, sec Tregelles on the printed text of N. T., in which he shows these fathers are misquoted. Theodoret, how ever does support it. Liberatus, Victor Tununensis (both of 6th cent.), affirm that Macedonius, under the Emperor Anastasius, changed OC into theos in order to support Nestorianism. AC corrected, G, read OC. So Memph. And Theb. The old Latin fg and Vulg. Have quod, referring to…, taken as a personal designation for the antecedent. The Syr. Peschito, and in fact all versions older than the seventh cent., have the relative NOT theos. D (A) corrected, alone of the uncials, favours O. The silence of the fathers of the fourth cent., though theos would have furnished them with a strong argument, is conclusive against it.” [1]

2. Anthony Buzzard
“Another example of a text which was altered is 1 Timothy 3:16. This verse reads in the KJV: “God was manifested in the flesh .” Modern versions have corrected the word “God” to “He who.” The alteration of an original “He who” (in Greek Oj) was very sneakily accomplished when some scribes changed the O (omicron) into a q (theta) giving qj (theta sigma). The reading THS was an abbreviated form of the Greek word theos, God. All that had to be done was to draw a little line across the middle of the O to produce the Greek letter theta (q). Then the text was made to sound Trinitarian and to support the Incarnation: “God was manifested in the flesh.” “He who” (O j) was made to read “God” (qj).” [2]

3. Isaac Newton
“All the Churches for the first four or five hundred years, and the authors of all the ancient versions, Jerome, as well as the rest read ‘ Great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh.’” [3]

4. Bart D. Ehrman
“The passage in question, 1 Tim. 3:16, had long been used by advocates of orthodox theology to support the view that the New Testament itself calls Jesus God. For the text, in most manuscripts, refers to Christ as “God made manifest in the flesh, and justified in the Spirit.” As I pointed out in chapter 3, most manuscripts abbreviate sacred names (the socalled nomina sacra), and that is the case here as well, where the Greek word God (QEOS) is abbreviated in two letters, theta and sigma (QS), with a line drawn over the top to indicate that it is an abbreviation. What Wettstein noticed in examining Codex Alexandrinus was that the line over the top had been drawn in a different ink from the surrounding words, and so appeared to be from a later hand (i.e., written by a later scribe). Moreover, the horizontal line in the middle of the first letter, Q, was not actually a part of the letter but was a line that had bled through from the other side of the old vellum. In other words, rather than being the abbreviation (thetasigma) For “God” (QS), the word was actually an omicron and a sigma (OS), a different word altogether, which simply means “who.” The original reading of the manuscript thus did not speak of Christ as “God made manifest in the flesh” but of Christ “who was made manifest in the flesh.” According to the ancient testimony of the Codex Alexandrinus, Christ is no longer explicitly called God in this passage.” [4]

5. Johann Jakob Griesbach
“This reading OS, is supported by most ancient witnesses of all classes [manuscripts, versions, and Fathers] and it is recommended also, by its internal indications of truth. On the contrary, the Vulgate Theos, was neither the primitive reading of the Alexandrine, nor of the Western recension: and further, it cannot be defended by arguments drawn from nature [or goodness] of the reading itself; but it is supported only by a number of manuscripts of a later date, belonging chiefly to the Constantinopolitan recension; and by the dubious credit to the more modern Greek Fathers; and could not be found in any monument of antiquity, prior to the close of the fourth century.”[5]

6. Professor of the New Testament, Reverend Benjamin B. Warfield
Expert palaeographers differ diametrically as to what the reading of A is, whether Theos or OC, and in the present worn state of the MS. Decision by renewed examinations is impossible. The same kind of controversy has been held as to the reading C, although apparently with much less reason; and although we have unclosed C also in doubting: parentheses we entertain no great doubt as to its support of OC. A large proportion of the versions so deliver their testimony as to make it indeterminable whether they read OC or O; they have been placed in both lists in-closed in brackets, as its existence has been doubted. Codex 73 has been personally examined by Dr. Schaff, and certainly reads OC. On applying genealogical considerations to this evidence, all the testimony that is at all certain for theos sifts out with the sifting out of the Syrian testimony. This reading appears in no father until late in the fourth century, in no version until at least the seventh century, and in MSS. Until long after the Syrian text had become everywhere the virtual textus receptus. On Genealogical grounds, thus theos is at once set aside, and the choice rests between OC and O. It can scarcely be doubted that O is Western; while the attestation (A) C 17 gives OS the appearance of having the support of the neutral and Alexandrian classes. The doubt that hangs Genealogical evidence of groups corroborates this finding. AC or C alone is of the best groups attainable in this part of the New testament. The transcriptional evidence comes to our help by making it improbable that O can be the correct reading and hence enabling us to account all the testimony for both OS and O combined against that for theos. The result is to condemn theos hopelessly. [6]

7. Andrews Norton
The original reading I believe to have been O which for this the external; evidence when fairly adjusted, seems greatly to preponderate; and it may have been altered by transcribers first into OS, and afterwards into theos, in consequence of the theological interpretation of the passage, according to which the mystery spoken of was Christ;- I believe has no reference to Christ personally. The words translated ‘mystery of godliness’ as if purposely to obscure the sense, should be rendered the new doctrine of piety, or concerning piety….” [7]

8. Richard N. Longenecker writes
“Passages in Paul where theos is employed of Christ are lacking. The appeal to 1 Timothy 3: 16 is undoubtedly illegitimate, for the reading ‘who (Oc) was manifested in the flesh’ has much stronger textual support than ‘God (theos) was manifested in flesh.’” [8]

9. Dr. Samuel Clark
“It has been great controversy among learned men, whether theos or OC, or O be the true reading in this place. All the old versions have it qui or quid [who or which]. And all ancient Fathers though the copies of many of them have it NOW in the text itself, theos [God]; yet from the tenor of their comments upon it, and from their never citing it in the Arian controversy, it appears they always read it, qui or quid.” [9]

10. Murray J Harris
….. Infact all the ancient versions presuppose the relative pronoun, whether OC or O and the earliest uncial in the original hand that reads theos dates from the eighth or ninth century. Also the earliest patristic citation of theos dates from the last third of the fourth century. Whereas Origen (d.254) more than a century earlier testifies to OC. The Strength of the external evidence favouring OS along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text… Accordingly 1 Timothy 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological use of theos.
The Conclusion we have reached about each of the secondary passages discussed in this chapter is indentical—and negative. In every case textual or grammatical considerations rule out the possibility that Jesus is called theos. [10]

11. Bruce M. Metzger


Bruce M. Metzger


Conclusion: The vast amount of evidence I have presented from the Scholars and Trinitarian Bible translations agree that 1 Timothy 3:16 does not say “God was manifest in the flesh” instead “He was manifest in flesh.” It was due to a scribe that the Greek word “OC” was changed into “theos.” Majority of the experts further showed that in the earliest manuscripts they have available it does not read God (theos) but “he, who” or which.



[1] John Albert Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, page 268
[2] Anthony Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian: A call to return to the creed of Jesus, page 257
[3] Isaac Newton, Historical Account Of Two Notable Corruptions Of Scripture: In A Letter To A Friend , page 58
[4] Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus page 113
[5] Johann Jakob Griesbach, Novum Testamentum Graece; Volume 3
[6] Professor of the New Testament Reverend Benjamin B. Warfield D. D. An Introduction to the textual criticism of the New Testament (1886), page 194- 195
[7] Andrews Norton, A Statement of reasons, page 132
[8] Richard N. Longenecker, The Christology of early Jewish Christianity, page 139
[9] Samuel Clark Scripture The Doctrine of the Trinity, page 540
[10] Murray J. Harris Jesus as God, The New Testament, page 267 to 268
[11] Bruce M. Metzger , The Text of the New Testament, its transmission, corruption and restoration. page 187