Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Mohammad Isa Mirsiam on November 2, 2000 06:10:05 UTC

now compare the miraculous conception as announced in verse 47 of the holy quran with what the holy bible says:

"now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this wise: when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, (as husband and wife) she was found with child of the holy ghost."
Matthew 1:18

The eminent Billy Graham from the united states of America dramatized this verse in front of 40 000 people in king park, Durban - with his in-dex finger sticking out and swinging his outstretched arm from right to left, he said, "and the holy ghost came and impregnated Mary!" on the other hand st. Luke tells us the very same thing but less crudely. He says that when the annunciation was made, Mary was perturbed. her natural reaction was -

" shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" - meaning sexually.

the quranic narrative is:

she said:

"o my lord! how shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" -meaning sexually. holy quran 3:47

in essence there is no difference between these two statements "seeing I know not a man" and "when no man hath touched me".
both the quotations have an identical meaning. it is simply a choice of different words mea-ning the same thing. but the respective
replies to Mary's plea in the two books (the quran and the bible) are revealing.

Says the bible: and the angel answered and said unto her,

"the holy ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee" Luke 1:35

can't you see that you are going the atheist, the sceptic, the agnostic stick to beat you with? they may well ask- "how did the holy ghost come upon Mary?" "how did the highest over shadow her? we know that literally it does not mean that: that it was an immaculate conception, but the language used here, is distasteful-gutter language-you agree!? now contrast this with the language of the quran: the quranic version

he said:(the angel says in reply) "even so: Allah createth what he willeth: when he hath decreed a plan, he but saith to it, 'be', and it is!" holy quran 3:47

this is the Muslim concept of the birth of Jesus. for god to create a Jesus, without a human father, he merely has to will it. if he wants to create a million Jesus' without fathers or mothers, he merely has to will them into existence. he does not have to take seeds and transfer them, like men or animals - by contact or artificial insemination. He wills everything into being by his word of command "be" and "it is".

there is nothing new in what I am telling you, I reminded the reverend. I is in the very first book of your holy bible - genesis 1:3 "and god said ..." what did he say? he said - "be" and "it was!" he did not have to articulate the words. this is our way of understanding the word 'be'-that he willed everything into being.

"Between these two versions of the birth of Jesus (PBUH) - the quranic version and the biblical version - which would you prefer to give your daughter?" I asked the supervisor of the bible house. he bowed his head down in humility and admitted - "the quranic version."

how can "a forgery" or "an imitation" (as it is alleged of the quran) be better than the genuine, the original (as it is claimed for the bible)? it can never be, unless this revelation to muhummed (PBUH) is what it, itself, claims to be viz. the pure and holy word of god! there are a hundred different tests that the unprejudiced seeker after truth can apply to the holy quran and it will qualify with flying colours to being a massage from on high.

Does the miraculous birth of Jesus make him a god or a "begotten" son of god? no! says the holy quran:

the similitude of Jesus before god is that of Adam; he created him from dust, then said to him: 'be':and he was. holy quran 3:59

"after a description of the high position which Jesus occupies as a prophet, in the preceding verses) we have a repudiation of the dogma that he was god, or the son of god, or anything more than man. if it is said that he was born without a human father, Adam was also so born. indeed Adam was born without either a human father or mother. as far as our physical bodies are concerned they are mere dust. in god's sight Jesus was as dust just as Adam was or humanity is. the greatness of Jesus arose from the divine command "be". for after that he was - more than dust - a great spiritual leader and teacher." A. Yusuf Ali's note 398 to verse
59 above.

the logic of it is that, if being born without a male parent entitles Jesus to being equated with god, then, Adam would have a greater right to such honour, and this no Christian would readily concede. thus, the Muslim is made to repudiate the Christian

further, if the Christian splits hairs by arguing that Adam was "created from the dust of the ground, whereas Jesus was immaculately "begotten"in the womb of Mary, then let us remind him that, even according to his own false standards. there is yet another person greater than Jesus, in his own bible. who is this superman?

"For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high god...." "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life..." Hebrews 7:1&3

here is a candidate for divinity itself, for only god almighty could possess these qualities. Adam had a beginning (in the garden), Jesus had a beginning (in the stable); Adam had an end and, claim the Christians, so had Jesus "and he gave up the ghost". but where is Melchisedec? perhaps he is hibernating somewhere like Rip Van Winkel.

and what is this "Hebrews"? it is the name of one of the books of the holy bible, authored by the gallant St. Paul, the self appointed thirteenth apostle of Christ. Jesus had twelve apostles, but one of them (Judas) had the devil in him. so the vacancy had to be filled, because of the "twelve" thrones in heaven which had to be occupied by his disciples to judge the children of Israel
(Luke 22:30).

Saul was a renegade Jew, and the Christians changed his name to "Paul", probably because "Saul" sounds Jewish. this Paul made such a fine mess of the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) that he earned for himself the second-most -coveted position of "the most influential men of history" in the monumental work of Michael H. Hart. "the 100" or "the top hundred" or the "greatest hundred in history". Paul outclasses even Jesus because, according to Michael hart, Paul was the real founder of present-day Christianity. the honour of creating Christianity had to be shared between Paul and Jesus, and Paul won because he wrote more books of the bible than any other single author, whereas Jesus did not write a single word.

Paul needed no inspiration to write his hyperboles here and in the rest of his epistles. did not Hitler's minister of propaganda -
Goebbles - say "the bigger the lie the more likely it is to be believed"? but the amazing thing about this exaggeration is that no
Christian seems to have read it. every learned man to whom I have shown this verse to, seemed to be seeing it for the first time. they appear dumbfounded, as described by the fitting words of Jesus:- "...seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Matthew 13:13

the holy quran also contains a verse which fittingly describes this well

cultivated sickness - deaf, dumb and blind, they will not return (to the path). holy quran 2:18

The Muslim takes strong exception to the Christian dogma that "Jesus is the only begotten son, begotten not made". this iswhat the Christian is made to repeat from childhood in his catechism. I have asked learned - Christians, again and again as to what they are really trying to emphasize, when they say "begotten not made".

they know that according to their own God-given (?!) records, god has sons by the tons:

"....Adam, which was the son of god." Luke 3:38

"that the sons of god saw the daughters of men that they were fair...

"and when the sons of god came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them...." genesis 6:2&4

"...Israel is my son, even my firstborn:" exodus 4:22

"...for I (god) and a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Jeremiah 31:9

"...the lord hath said unto me, (David) thou art my son: this day have i begotten thee." psalms 2:7

"for as many as are led by the spirit of god, they are the sons of god." romans 8:14

can't you see that in the language of the Jew, every righteous person, every ton, dick and harry who followed the will and plan of god, was a son of god. it was a metaphorical descriptive term, commonly used among the Jews. the Christian agrees with this reasoning, but goes on to say - "but Jesus was not like that". Adam was made by god. every living thing was made by god; he is the Lord, Cherisher and Sustainer of all. metaphorically speaking therefore god is the father of all. but Jesus was the "begotten" son of god, not a created son of god?

In my forty years of practical experience in talking to learned Christi-ans, not a single one has opened his mouth to hazard an explanation of the phrase - "begotten not made". it had to be an American who dared to explain. he said, "it means, sired by god." "what?" I exploded. "sired-by god?" - "no, no,"he said, "i am only trying to explain the meaning, I do not believe that god really sired a son."

the sensible Christian says that the words do not literally mean what they say. then why do you say it? why are you creating unnecessary con-flict between the 1,200,000,000 Christians and a thousand million Muslim of the world in making senseless statements?

The Muslim takes exception to the word "begotten", because begetting is an animal act, belonging to the lower animal functions of sex. how can we attribute such a lowly capacity to god? metaphorically we are all the children of god - the good and the bad - and Jesus (PBUH) would be clo-ser to being the son of god than any one of us, because he would be more faithful to god than any one of us, because he would be more faithful to god than any one of us can ever be. from that point of view he is preeminently the son of god.

although this pernicious word "begotten" has now unceremoniously been thrown out of the "most accurate" version of the bible - the R. S. V. its ghost still lingers on in the Christian mind, both black and white. through its insidious brainwashing the white man is made to feel superior to his black Christian brother of the same church and denomination. and in turn, the black man is given a permanent inferiority complex through this dogma.

The human mind can't help reasoning that since the "begotten son" of an African will look like an African, and that of a china man as a Chinese, and that of an Indian like an Indian: so the begotten son of god aught naturally to look like god. billions of beautiful pictures and replicas of this "only begotten son"(?) of god are put in peoples hands. he looks like a European with blonde hair, blue eyes and handsome features - like the one I saw in the "king of kings" or "the day of triumph" or "Jesus o Nazareth" remember Jeffrey Hunter? the "SAVIOUR" of the Christian is more like a German than a Jew with his polly nose. so naturally, if the son I a white man, the father would also be a white man (god?). hence the dar-ker skinned races of the earth subconsciously have the feeling of infe-riority ingrained in their souls as god's step-children. no amount to face-creams,
skin-lighteners and hair-straighteners will erase the infe-riority.

God is neither black nor white. he is a spiritual being, beyond the ima-gination of the mind of man. break the mental shackles of a Caucasian - (white) man-god, and you have broken the shackles of a permanent inferiority. but intellectual bondages are harder to shatter: the slave himself fights to retain them.


"Christ in Islam" is really Christ in the quran: and the holy quran has something definite to say about every abberation of Christianity. the quran absolves Jesus (PBUH) from all the false charges of his enemies as well as the misplaced infatuation of his followers. his enemies allege that he blasphemed against god by claiming divinity. his misguided followers claim that he did avow divinity, but that was not blasphemy (Kufr) because he was god. what does the quran say?

addressing both the Jews and the Christians, Allah says:-

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 messengers... Holy quran 4:171

"o people of the book:" is a very respectful title with which the Jews and the Christians are addressed in the holy quran. in other words, Allah is saying - "o learned people!" "o people with a scripture!" according to their own boast, the Jews and the Christians prided themselves over the Arabs, who had no scripture before the quran. as a learned people, Allah pulls up both the contending religionists for going to either ex-tremes as regards the personality of Christ.

the Jews made certain insinuations about the legitimacy of Jesus(PBUH) and charged him of blasphemy by twisting his words. the Christians read other meanings into his words; wrench words out of their context to make him god.

the modern-day Christian - the hot-gospeller - the bible thumper - uses harsher words and cruder approaches to win over a convert
to his blasphemies. he says:

(a) "either Jesus is god or a liar"
(b) "either Jesus is god or a lunatic"
(c) "either Jesus is god or an imposter"

these are his words - words culled from Christian literature. since no man of charity, Muslim or otherwise, can condemn Christ so harshly as the Christian challenges him to do, perforce he must keep non-committal. he thinks he must make a choice between one or the other of these silly extremes. it does not occur to him that there is an alternative to this Christian conundrum.

Is it not possible that Jesus is simply what he claimed to be- a prophet like so many other prophets that passed away before
him? even that he is one of the greatest of them - a mighty miracle worker, a great spiritual teacher and guide - the messiah! why only god or lunatic? is "lunacy" the opposite of "divinity" in Christianity? what is the antonym of god? will some clever Christian answer?

the quran lays bare the true position of Christ in a single verse ,it say

(1) that he was the son of a woman, Mary, and therefore a man;
(2) but an apostle, a man with a mission from god, and therefore he is entitled to honour;
(3) a word bestowed on Mary, for he was created by god's word "be"(kun), and he was; see holy quran 3:59.
(4) a spirit proceeding from god, but not god: his life and mission were more limited than in the case of some other apostles, though we must pay equal honour to him as a man of god. the doctrines of trinity, equality with god, and sonship, are repudiated as blasphemies. god is independent of all needs and has no need of a son to manage his affairs. the gospel of John (whoever wrote it) has put a great deal of Alexandrain Gnostic mysticism round the doctrine of the word (Greek, Logos), but it is simply explained here, and our Sufis work on this explanation." A. Yusuf Ali's comment on verse 171 above.

Reproduced below are verses 119 to 121 from Sura Maida (ch.5) depicting the scene of judgement day, when Allah will question Jesus (PBUH) regarding the misdirected zeal of his supposed followers in worshipping him and his mother: and his response and behold! god will say: "o Jesus the son of Mary! didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of god'?" he will say: "glory to thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. thou knowest what is in my heart, though i know not what is in time. for thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

"never said I to them aught except what thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship god, my lord and your lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when thou didst take me up thou wast the watcher over them, and thou art a witness to all things.

"if thou dost punish them, they are thy servants: if thou dost forgive them, thou art the exalted in power, the wise." Holy quran 5:119-121

If this is the statement of truth from the all-knowing, that"never did I say to them anything other than what I was commanded to say,that is wor-ship god, who is my lord and your lord", then how do the Christians jus-tify worshipping Jesus?

there is not a single unequivocal statement throughout the bible, in all its 66 volumes of the Protestant versions, or in the 73 volumes of the roman catholic versions, where Jesus claims to be god or where he says - 'worship me.' nowhere does he say that he and god almighty are one and the same person.

the last phrase above - "one and the same person" tickles many a "hot-gospeller" and bible-thumper," not excluding the doctor of
divinity and the professor of theology. even the new converts to Christianity have memorized these verses. they are programmed like zombies to rattle off verses, out of context, upon which they can hang their faith. the words "are one" activates the mind by association of memories. "yes", say the Trinitarians - the worshippers of three gods in one god, and one god in three gods - "Jesus did claim to be god!" where?

I had taken rev. Morris D. D. and his wife, to lunch at the "golden pea-cock". while at the table, during the course of our mutual sharing of knowledge, the opportunity arose to ask, "where?" and without a murmur he quoted, "i and my father are one" - to imply that god and Jesus were one and the same person. that Jesus here claims to be god. the verse quoted was well known to me, but it was being quoted out of context. it did not carry the meaning that the doctor was imaging, so I asked him, "what is the context?"

The reverend stopped eating and began staring at me. I said, "why? don't you know the context?" - "you see, what you have quoted is the text, I want to know the context, the text that goes with it, before or after." here was an Englishman (Canadian), a paid-servant of the Presbyterian church, a doctor of divinity, and it appeared that I was trying to teach him English. of course he knew what "contest" meant. but like the rest o his compatriots, he had not studied the sense in which Jesus(PBUH) had uttered the words.

in my forty years of experience, this test had been thrown at me hundred of times, but not a single learned Christian had ever attempted to hazard a guess as to its real meaning. they always start fumbling for their bibles. The doctor did not have one with him. when they do start going for their bibles, I stop them in their stride. "surely, you know what you are quoting?" "surely, you know your bible?" after reading this, I hope some "born-again" Christians will rectify this deficiency. but I doubt that m Muslim readers will ever come across one in their lifetime who could give them the context.

It is unfair on the part of the reverend, having failed to provide the context, then to ask me, "do you know the context?" "of course," I said. "then, what is it?" asked my learned friend. I said, "that which you have quoted is the text of John chapter 10,
verse 30. to get at the context, we have to begin from verse 23 which reads:

23 and Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.

John, or whoever he was, who wrote his story, does not tell us the reason for Jesus tempting the devil by walking alone in the lion's den. for we do not expect the Jews to miss a golden opportunity to get even with Jesus. perhaps, he was emboldened by the manner in which he had literally whipped the Jews single-handed in the temple, and upset the tables of the money-changers
at the beginning of his ministry (John 2:15).

24 then came the Jews round about him. and said unto him, how long dost thou make us to doubt? if thou be the Christ, tell us

they surrounded him. brandishing their fingers in his face, they began accusing him and provoking him; saying that he had not put forth his cl-aim plainly enough, clearly enough. that he was talking ambiguously. the were trying to work themselves into a frenzy to assault him. in fact,their real complaint was that they did not like his method of preaching-his invectives, the manner in which he condemned them for their formalism, their ceremonialism, their going for the letter of the law and forgetting the spirit. but Jesus could not afford to provoke them any further-there were too many and they were itching for a fight.discretion is the better part of
valour. in a conciliatory spirit, befitting the occasion -

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and you believed not:the works that I do in my father's name, they bear witness of me.

that is to say , the miracles bear witness of my prophethood and of me being the messiah .

26 but ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Jesus rebuts the false charge of his enemies that he was ambiguous in his claims to being the messiah that they were waiting for. he says that he did tell them clearly enough, yet they would not listen to him, but

27 my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 my father which gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my father's hand.

how can anyone be so blind as not to see the exactness of the ending ofthe last two verses. but spiritual blinkers are more impervious than physical defects. he is telling the Jews and recording for posterity, the real unity or relationship between the father and the son. the most crucial verse -

30 I and my father are one.

one in what? in their omniscience? in their nature? in their omnipotence no! one in purpose! that once a believer has accepted faith, the messenger sees to it that he remains in faith, and god almighty also sees to it that he remains in faith. this is the purpose of the "father" and the "son" and the "holy ghost" and of every man and every woman of faith. let the same John explain his Gnostic mystic verbiage.

that they all may be one: as thou. father, art in me, and in thee, that they also may be one in us...

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made

perfect in one....

John 17:20-22

if Jesus is "one" with god, and if that "oneness" makes him god, then the traitor Judas, and the doubting Thomas, and the satanic peter, plus the other nine who deserted him when he was most in need are god(s),because the same oneness which he claimed with god in John 10:30, now he claims for all "who forsook him and fled"(mark 14:50) - all "ye of little faith" (Matthew 8:26) - all "o
faithless and perverse generation"(Luke 9:41) where and when will the Christian blasphemy end? the expression "I and my father are one," was very innocent, meaning nothing more than a common purpose with god. but the Jews were looking for trouble and any excuse will not do, therefore, -

31 the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, many good works have I shewed you from my father for which of those works do you stone me?

33 the Jews answered him, saying, for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself a god.

In verse 24 above the Jews falsely alleged that Jesus was talking ambiguously. when that charge was ably refuted, they then accused him of blasphemy (Kufr) which is like treason in the spiritual realm. so they say that Jesus is claiming to be god - "I and my father are one". the Christians agree with the Jews in this that Jesus (PBUH) did make such a claim; but, differ, in that it was not blasphemy because the Christians say that he was god and was entitled to own up to his divinity.

The Christians and the Jews are both agreed that the utterance is serious. to one as an excuse for good "redemption", and to the other as an excuse for good "riddance". between the two, let the poor Jesus die. But Jesus refuses to co-operate in this dirty game, so -

34 Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of god came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the son of

He is bit sarcastic in verse 34, but in any event, why does he say:

"your law"? is it not also his law? didn't he say: think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill (the law). for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one lot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18)

Quot;ye are gods:" he is obviously quoting from the 82nd. psalm (verse 6) "i have said, ye are gods: and all of you are, the children of the most high."

Jesus, continues, "if he (i.e. god almighty) called them gods, unto whom the word of god came (meaning that the prophets of god were called 'GODS' and the scripture cannot be broken (in other words- you can't contradict me!)." - Jesus knows his scripture; he speaks with authority; and he reasons with his enemies that "if good men, holy men, prophets of god are being addressed as "gods" in our books of authority, with which you find no fault - then why do you take exception to me? - when the only claim I make for myself is far inferior in our language, viz. "a son of god" as against others being called "gods" by god himself. even if (Jesus) described myself as "god" in our language, according to Hebrew usage, you could find no fault with me." this is the plain reading of Christian scripture. I am giving no interpretations of my own or some esoteric meaning to words!

Chapter 7 : "IN THE BEGINNING"

"where does Jesus say - "I am god," or "I am equal to god," or worship me" I asked the D. D. from Canada, again.

reverend Morris took a deep breath and took another try. he quoted the most oft-repeated verse of the Christian bible. - John 1:1.

"in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god." please note, these are not the words of Jesus. they are the words of John (or whoever wrote them). acknowledged by every erudite Christian scholar of the bible as being the words of another Jew, Philo of alexan-dria, who had written them even before John and Jesus were born and Philo claimed no divine inspiration for them. no matter what mystical meaning that Philo had woven around these words (which our John has plagiarized) we will accept them for what they are worth.

Since the manuscripts of the 27 books of the new testament are in Greek, a Christian sect has produced its own version and has even changed the name of this selection of 27 books to "Christian Greek scriptures"! I asked the reverend whether he knew Greek? "yes," he said, he had studied Greek for 5 years before qualification . I asked him what was the Greek word for "god" the first time it occurs in the quotation - "and the word was with god"? he kept staring, but didn't answer. so I said, the word was HOTHEOS, which literally means "the god". since the European (including the north American) has evolved a system of using capital letter to start a proper noun and small letters for common nouns, we would ac-cept his giving a capital "g" for god; in other words HOTHEOS is rendered "the god" which in turn is rendered - god.

"now tell me, what is the Greek word for god in the second occurrence in your quotation - "and the word was god"? the reverend still kept silent. not that he did not know Greek, or that he had lied - but, he knew more than that, the game was up. I said the word was TONTHEOS, which means "a god". according to your own system of translating you aught to have spelt this word God a second time with a small "g" i.e. god, and not God with a ca-pital "G"; in other words TONTHEOS is rendered "a god". both of these, "god" or "a god" are correct.

i told the reverend "but in 2 Corinthians 4:4 you have dishonestly reversed your system by using a small "g" when spelling GOD - "(and the devil is) the god of this world." the Greek word for "the god" is HOTHEOS the same as in John 1:1. "why have you not been consistent in your transla-tion?" "if Paul was inspired (?) to write hotheos - the God for the Devil, why begrudge him that...........cont in PART (III)

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins