who is this man?

There are several key verses which Christians use to prove the biblical origin of the Trinity. Upon analysis of these verses, one can clearly see that they do not prove the Trinity, but rather the same monotheistic message of God. One of the most frequently cited passages from the Bible is Isaiah 9:6-7, from which Christians conclude that the Messiah must be God incarnate. The passage states:

“or a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.”

That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible. Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially.

First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense. For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.” The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense. In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25. Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense!

Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.” This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event. Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history. A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says. The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son.

Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, “is” is understood. For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.” A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”. This name describes God, not the person who carries the name. The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body!

Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars. Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English. Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles.

Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime.

Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father! And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine.

Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus.

Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah. Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies. At the time Isaiah is said to have written this

passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib. The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and killed 185,000 soldiers while they slept. When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was assassinated by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38). Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God.


When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory. It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31. Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God. Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege.

Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz.

One principle in the true Gospel and the Holy Koran

53. Say: "O 'Ibadi (My slaves) who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, verily Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Surah Az-Zumar

Go directly to the Creator
He asked for forgiveness and remorse and not to return to sin again

There is no intermediary to reveal his mistakes

And take an instrument for forgiveness from the church

This is a particular delusion

Ahmed Deedat Is it permissible for a Muslim of forgiveness and entering paradise youtube

Someone told me
Thanks for sharing info, I know what your point is. I am just throwing my opinion.
One can’t just compare Jesus with current day Christians. One need to understand the dominant race in Christianity and their background, how they accepted this religion and how it impacted their daily lives.
Jesus was a Prophet, like Abraham, Moses and Muhammed peace be upon them.

The Christians of today's days are product of Roman Empire’s conveniently adoption of Jesus’ religion in 3rd century.
The Europeans had a mixed and scattered culture for thousands of years, with pagan beliefs and other fairy tales dominating the landscape.
With the advent of Christianity in Europe, the locals adopted the religion very quickly, as it did not confronted with their life styles and culture.


Under Constantine who imported (officially) the religion in Europe, Romans ensured that the new religion is in full compliance to their culture and rituals.
For example, during the counsel of Nicaea several aspects of belief systems were standardized before masses (of Europe, non-Semitics, Caucasians) can have a hold onto different version of Bible or common daily life practices of Orthodox Jews. The East Bazentine, new Roman Empire to the central

Europe and pockets of other areas in North were mainly pagan at that time. So sculptures, divine figures, certain celebrations, festivities were part of their social life. Moral values were as good as any other region of that time (The middle-east that had Jewish population and influence on others were considered very conservatives, so you can imagine what was going on in Europe), drinking and pork eating was normal and commonly practiced.


So the importer of the new religion made sure that standards set by Bible for Isrealites must not collide with the relaxed (no restrictions) attitude of Europeans towards religion. They customized the religion to best suite the new tenants that eventually became the torch bearer of Christianity within few centuries. The original followers and preachers fell in the background and eventually forgotten.

The religion totally changed and took new course where the founder died for the sins, giving followers clean chit to do whatever they do, keep His sculpture in Church, follow the re-branded customs of pagans with renewed stories linked to Jesus for every celebration and festivals, drink and eat pork as before and create excuses (from Jesus’ life) for everything that they do against the Ten Commandments.

Of all the Christian mysteries, none rank as highly as the concept of Christ’s crucifixion and atoning sacrifice. In fact, Christians base their salvation on this one tenet of faith. And if it really happened, shouldn’t we all?

If it really happened, that is.

Now, I don’t know about you, but the concept of Jesus Christ having atoned for the sins of mankind sounds pretty good to me. And shouldn’t it? I mean, if we can trust that someone else atoned for all of our sins, and we can go to heaven on that concept alone, shouldn’t we instantly close on that deal?

If it really happened, that is.

So let’s check this out. We’re told Jesus Christ was crucified. But then again, we’re told a lot of things that later prove to be doubtful or even untrue, so it would be reassuring if we could verify the fact.

So let’s ask the witnesses. Let’s ask the gospel authors.

Umm, one problem. We don’t know who the authors were. This is a less popular Christian mystery (i.e., waaay less popular) – the fact that all four gospels of the New Testament are anonymous.[1] Nobody knows who wrote them. Graham Stanton tells us, “The gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous. The familiar headings which give the name of an author (‘The Gospel according to . . .’) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.”[2]

Added in the second century? By whom? Believe it or not, that is anonymous as well.

But let’s forget all that. After all, the four gospels are part of the Bible, so we must respect them as scripture, right?

Right?

Well, maybe not. After all, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.”[3] Add to that Bart D. Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”[4]

Whoa. Hard to imagine. On one hand, we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John telling us . . . oh, excuse me. I meant to say, we have Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous and Anonymous telling us . . . well, what? What do they tell us? That they can’t even agree on what Jesus wore, drank, did or said? After all, Matthew 27:28 tells us the Roman soldiers dressed Jesus with a scarlet robe. John 19:2 says it was purple. Matthew 27:34 says the Romans gave Jesus sour wine mingled with gall. Mark 15:23 says it was mixed with myrrh. Mark 15:25 tells us Jesus was crucified before the third hour, but John 19:14–15 says it was “about the sixth hour.” Luke 23:46 says Jesus’ last words were “Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit,” but John 19:30: says they were “It is finished!”

Now, wait a minute. Jesus’ righteous followers would have hung on his every word. On the other hand, Mark 14:50 tells us that all the disciples deserted Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. But okay, some people – not disciples, I guess, but some people (anonymous, of course) – hung on his every word, hoping for some parting words of wisdom, and they heard . . . different things?

Believe it or not, after this point, the gospel records become even more inconsistent.

Following the alleged resurrection, we hardly find a single issue the four gospels (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20) agree upon. For example:

Who went to the tomb?

Matthew: “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary”

Mark: “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome”

Luke: “The women who had come with him from Galilee” and “certain other women”

John: “Mary Magdalene”

Why did they go to the tomb?

Matthew: “To see the tomb”

Mark: They “brought spices, that they might come and anoint him”

Luke: They “brought spices”

John: no reason given

Was there an earthquake (something nobody in the vicinity would be likely to either miss or forget)?

Matthew: Yes

Mark: no mention

Luke: no mention

John: no mention

Did an angel descend? (I mean, come on, guys – an angel? Are we to believe that three of you somehow missed this part?)

Matthew: Yes

Mark: no mention

Luke: no mention

John: no mention

Who rolled back the stone?

Matthew: The angel (the one the other three anonymouses – now, let’s see, would that be “anonymouses” or “anonymice”? – didn’t see)

Mark: unknown

Luke: unknown

John: unknown

Who was at the tomb?

Matthew: “an angel”

Mark: “a young man”

Luke: “two men”

John: “two angels”

Where were they?

Matthew: The angel was sitting on the stone, outside the tomb.

Mark: The young man was in the tomb, “sitting on the right side.”

Luke: The two men were inside the tomb, standing beside them.

John: The two angels were “sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.”

By whom and where was Jesus first seen?

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary,” on the road to tell the disciples.

Mark: Mary Magdalene only, no mention where.

Luke: Two of the disciples, en route to “a village called Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem.”

John: Mary Magdalene, outside the tomb.

So where does this leave us, if not wondering whose idea of scripture this is?

The practicality of Islamic Law is one particular aspect that truly impressed me at that time, It is a great blessing that in Islam one finds detailed teachings that result in their desired goals while, at the same time, being extremely practical and consistent with human nature. The lack of such teachings is one of the greatest dilemmas faced by Christianity. For example, with respect to societal cohesion and interaction, the greatest teachings found in the New Testament are what are known as “the hard sayings” of Jesus. They are as follows:

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:38-48).

Christian scholars themselves are perplexed. How are such obviously impossible or impractical teachings to be applied? Just one example of a discussion of these words will suffice to show how perplexing they are to those who staunchly believe in them:

[For interpreting these words, t]he model proposed by Joachim Jeremias is simple, representative, and of continuing influence. According to this model, the Sermon usually is seen in one of three ways: (1) as a perfectionist code, fully in line with the legalism of rabbinic Judaism; (2) as an impossible ideal, meant to drive the believer first to desperation, and then to trust in God's mercy; or (3) as an ‘interim ethic’ meant for what was expected to be a brief period of waiting in the end time, and which is now obsolete. Jeremias adds his own fourth thesis: The Sermon is an indicative depiction of incipient life in the kingdom of God, which presupposes as its condition of possibility the experience of conversion. More complex or comprehensive schematizations have been offered, but most major interpreters can be understood in relation to the options posed by Jeremias.[1]

In Islam, there are no such dilemmas. The teachings are easy, flexible, practical and completely suited to everyday life, even for a new Muslim living in a completely non-Islamic environment, such as I was. The famed author James A. Michener also noted and appreciated this aspect of Islam. In one of the earliest writings that I had read about Islam, entitled “Islam—the Misunderstood Religion,” Michener wrote,

The Koran is remarkably down-to-earth in its discussion of the good life. In one memorable passage it directs: ‘When ye deal with each other in transactions involving future obligations reduce them to writing… and get two witnesses…’ It is this combination of dedication to one God, plus practical instruction, that makes the Koran unique.[2